On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:33 PM, Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> wrote: > /* > - * Holds any information related to accessing the raw object content. > + * Holds any information needed to retrieve the raw content > + * of objects. The object_parser uses this to get object > + * content which it then parses. > */ > struct raw_object_store *objects; > > + /* > + * State for the object parser. This owns all parsed objects > + * (struct object) so callers do not have to manage their > + * lifetime. > + */ > + struct object_parser *parsed_objects;
I like this name 'parsed_objects'. Should we rename the struct after it (e.g. parsed_object_store as opposed to raw_object_store above)? Another suggestion is object_pool, if we keep 'struct object' instead of 'struct parsed_object' and also want to keep current allocation behavior: no individual deallocation. If you free, you free the whole pool (e.g. you could run rev-list --all --objects in a separate pool, once you're done, you delete the whole pool). -- Duy
