storage branch - control_files - public or private

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 21:12 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > I think that branch.control_files should be private -
> > branch._control_files.
> > 
> > thoughts?
> > 
> > Rob
> 
> I sort-of agree. 'control_files' doesn't seem like a public api.
> However, we need some way for external clients (plugins) to get access
> to put() and put_utf8() so they can store their branch information.
> 
> We really should expose the branch.put(), repository.put() and
> checkout.put() so plugins can start thinking about what needs to be put
> where.

This implies that branches repositories and checkouts start to look like
random file storage areas. I think thats bad. Rather than that, how
about we offer specific apis for the things we want to support ? I.e. If
you as a plugin author need to save settings, get a BranchConfig and
set_user_setting on that. That there covers off all key-value settings
for plugin authors. 

Do we want random file storage to be part of the service offered by
branches/repositories/checkouts ?

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060105/92a57ffa/attachment.pgp