Fancy branches versus Transports

[John A Meinel]

I wanted to merge my Transport code to the latest bzr.dev, so I pulled
it in, and I'm looking over Lalo's branch constructor code.

The issue I want to bring up, is whether we want Branches to be aware of
the underlying transport, or not.
The way I was trying to write it, was that we would have a Transport
layer, which would get rid of RemoteBranch entirely. Transport would
provide a couple hints to the upper layer, so it would know whether it
should do caching or not, but generally, the Branch object would be the
same no matter where the data was coming from.

I can still do that with Lalo's code, it just looks funny, because I am
instantiating a "LocalBranch" for remote operations.

John
=:->
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050916/9aad9df3/attachment.pgp