Re: storeGet() -> storeGetPublic() ?

On Tue, Jan 09, 2001, Alex Rousskov wrote:

> > I agree about deciding where you are going, but IMO this change does
> > _not_ tie squid to either of the options you have presented above. It
> > does mean a little more effort is needed to create a new FS, but given
> > the common code can be grouped together when this change occurs, that
> > extra effort would be around 20 lines of code. Copied from ufs.
>
> If all the changes discussed on this thread are specific to, say,
> reiser-fs module, then I was worried for nothing. If, however, every
> FS will now have to support some kind of a digest, then I may be
> right. What starts as 20 lines in UFS may quickly become a (100
> similar lines * 10 modules) mess just to gain the most from the
> reiser-fs.

Yup, I agree. And I also agree with the comment about the UFS code being
repeated in way too many places. I'd like to write a libufs which
ufs, aufs and diskd all use. Alternatively, we could kill aufs/diskd
and use disk.c in the way it was designed to be used, but that looks
to be a little too magical for me to get right before squid-2.4.

So, how about this: How about we tidy up the ufs/aufs/diskd code mess
before squid-2.4 ? I'm willing to put in some extra time over the
next couple of days to get this done.

Then we can call it 2.4 :-)

Adrian

-- 
Adrian Chadd			"Sex Change: a simple job of inside
<adrian@creative.net.au>	  to outside plumbing."
				    - Some random movie