[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [PATCH] time for instdata to die


On 02/03/2010 07:29 PM, Chris Lumens wrote:
We've got the Anaconda object, we've got KickstartData, why do we need
InstallData as well?  The extensive, somewhat tested patch set at:


completely removes InstallData.  Some of the attributes have gone away
entirely, and some have moved to other places.  A lot of stuff has ended
up as a property on the Anaconda object which is going to make a lot of
other stuff easier for me in the future.

This is a lot to test.  My plan is to either make a gigantic updates.img
or a local test build and compose.  Then I'll put it through some basic
testing (text, graphical, kickstart, vnc, encryption all come to mind as

I very much like the idea of killing instdata, I'm not so sure if I like
the solution of just moving bits over to the anaconda class though. For
some things this might make sense, but not so much for others.

The problem with instdata which moving its content over to anaconda does
not fix, is that we need access to it almost everywhere. So we keep on
passing references around. Much the same happens to for example
storage, be it either in the form of passing around instdata or anaconda
because we need it, or by passing it around itself.

All 3 (and others like bootloader) have 2 things in common:
1) There is only ever one of them.
2) There __init__ methods have no arguments
   (other the references to the other 2)

I think it would be much better to untangle this whole mess by making
anaconda,, booty and storage singletons and there are likely other
candidates too.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]