From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: normalperson at yhbt.net (Eric Wong)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:47:51 +0000
Subject: Policy on global variables
In-Reply-To: <CAFXTnz47EV_xFnz_7oNRZzeqaAWq6E0LcJFmmiy502TQ3KpTUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHmME9rKGfPx6ppX3VtN06Cd0YpAGCuzM4WW5A-sg7i3q6ZoTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140116005912.GA20306@dcvr.yhbt.net>
 <CAHmME9qWGtso5o+ao0FpsaVO_3ZoRbwoOK1G3Tp2aWtsD0iF2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFXTnz47EV_xFnz_7oNRZzeqaAWq6E0LcJFmmiy502TQ3KpTUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140116104751.GA26678@dcvr.yhbt.net>

Lars Hjemli <hjemli at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Eric Wong <normalperson at yhbt.net> wrote:
> >> This.  I prefer we keep passing around the ctx variable to keep the code
> >> more flexible for future reuse.  Of course, IIRC git itself has this
> >> limitation, too...
> >
> > Can anyone confirm or deny this? Is it a pointless endeavor because of
> > git's design?
> 
> Supporting something like FCGI in cgit will require a fork(2) for each
> request, before invoking libgit.a functions, since these functions are
> not generally reentrant (they tend to use global state and/or
> inconveniently die(3)).

Unfortunately true for now, but libgit.a could evolve (or cgit can use
something like libgit2 instead).