Re: [PATCH 03/14] lockfile: remove some redundant functions

Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] writes:

Remove the following functions and rewrite their callers to use the
equivalent tempfile functions directly:

* fdopen_lock_file() -> fdopen_tempfile()
* reopen_lock_file() -> reopen_tempfile()
* close_lock_file() -> close_tempfile()

Hmph, 

My knee-jerk reaction was "I thought lockfile abstraction was
fine---why do we expose the implementation detail of the lockfile,
which is now happen to be implemented on top of the tempfile API, to
the callers?"  I guess that was also where my comments on 02/14 "why
do callers have to include tempfile.h separately?" came from.

I'm undecided but would trust your judgement until I read thru to
the end of the series ;-).

Am 10.06.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Junio C Hamano:

Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Remove the following functions and rewrite their callers to use the
equivalent tempfile functions directly:

* fdopen_lock_file() -> fdopen_tempfile()
* reopen_lock_file() -> reopen_tempfile()
* close_lock_file() -> close_tempfile()

Hmph,

My knee-jerk reaction was "I thought lockfile abstraction was
fine---why do we expose the implementation detail of the lockfile,
which is now happen to be implemented on top of the tempfile API, to
the callers?"

Just for the record, I had exactly the same reaction, and I find this 
transition against the spirit of a self-contained lockfile API.

-- Hannes