Re: Restructuring check scripts
Raphael Geissert <geissert@debian.org> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Hm, if we're going to make use of that, we should also ensure that the
>> checks are called in a predictable order or can declare dependencies on
>> each other or something... although I suppose they could use a separate
>> sub to gather the data and use the same technique that Lintian::Collect
>> uses to cache it.
> That's why I suggested turning Lintian::Collect into the canonical data
> interface. By moving all the data collecting logic into a separate
> module it will be easier to later support multiple threads (which I hope
> at some point we do) as the locking mechanism would be needed there and
> not on every check.
Although if we do that, there may not be as much need for an object, since
it's not clear what one would store in it.
Ah well, we may as well make it an object anyway, just in case. We might
find some use for it later, and having standard setup and teardown
functions does seem like a good idea.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: