Justin Tobler <jltobler@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> If it is preferable, I can combine these two patches together. I kept
> them separate as I thought it would better explain the steps, but maybe
> that isn't the best way to structure the patch as we are largely undoing
> the change in the next patch anyway.
This shouldn't make much difference, but I prefer the current
"awkared but done as two steps" arrangement slightly better.
> I'm hoping for an eventual state where the transactional interfaces,
> {begin,end}_odb_transaction(), are moved directly into odb.{h,c}.
Yes.
> The
> current implementation of transaction handling is specific to the
> current object database source. In a pluggable object database future
> where we could have different types of object database sources,
> transaction handling will likely have to implemented separately.
Yup.
> With this in mind, we could move the current transaction implementation
> into something like object-files.c. This is already where the vast
> majority of its call sites are and would enable us to further simply the
> interface we expose.
Great.
