From 1b4c3fb551754cc70abd7a18871a79d79ac3cb5b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Amitai Schlair Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:36:23 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] note refactored wrapper tweakulation --- doc/plugins/contrib/cvs/discussion.mdwn | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/cvs/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/cvs/discussion.mdwn index 1f0ce0102..155a2289d 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/cvs/discussion.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/cvs/discussion.mdwn @@ -125,3 +125,19 @@ to pass to the command. > Thanks for reading carefully. I've tested your suggestions and > applied them on my branch. --[[schmonz]] + +---- + +I've abstracted out CVS's involvement in the wrapper, adding a new +"wrapperargcheck" hook to examine `argc/argv` and return success or +failure (failure causes the wrapper to terminate) and implementing +this hook in the plugin. In the non-CVS case, the check immediately +returns success, so the added overhead is just a function call. + +Given how rarely anything should need to reach in and modify the +wrapper -- I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't make it too easy +-- I don't think it's worth the effort to try and design a more +general-purpose way to do so. If and when some other problem thinks +it wants to be solved by a new wrapper hook, it's easy enough to add +one. Until then, I'd say it's more important to keep the wrapper as +short and clear as possible. --[[schmonz]] -- 2.39.5