From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp33.i.mail.ru (smtp33.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B68F46970E for ; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 00:55:21 +0300 (MSK) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 23:55:18 +0200 From: Nikita Pettik Message-ID: <20191227215518.GM18639@tarantool.org> References: <002eae0ce1f0c7f28b5ef43236e069172942fdae.1577455413.git.imeevma@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002eae0ce1f0c7f28b5ef43236e069172942fdae.1577455413.git.imeevma@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v5 1/3] box: introduce 'virtual' engine List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: imeevma@tarantool.org Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org On 27 Dec 17:05, imeevma@tarantool.org wrote: > This patch introduces a new engine called "virtual" that will be > used to create a new system space. Such a descriptive commit message...Please, add either rfc or extend commit message to get others a change to dive into your patch: why do you need that engine, why alternatives are not suitable and so on and so forth. It's not only about this patch, but the next one as well. As an alternative to 'virtual' name I can suggest 'service', 'system' (not so good since we already have 'sysview'), 'sysspace' (similar to 'sysview'). > +static struct space * > +virtual_engine_create_space(struct engine *engine, struct space_def *def, > + struct rlist *key_list) > +{ > + (void)engine; > + (void)def; > + (void)key_list; > + /* There are currently no spaces with this engine. */ > + diag_set(ClientError, ER_UNSUPPORTED, "Tarantool", > + "spaces with this engine."); -> with 'virtual' engine.