From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D2AC1FF0B2 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:57:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 18346215ED; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:57:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:57:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager v2 16/20] api-cache: add wrapper type To: Lukas Wagner , pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260820145220.418032-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20260820145220.418032-17-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20fd1678-99b3-44d4-917d-f27d519bef0d@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787579829480 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.746 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: XH4E642OBOXCCD7ZP4M4ZTO3APRQBKGC X-Message-ID-Hash: XH4E642OBOXCCD7ZP4M4ZTO3APRQBKGC X-MailFrom: d.csapak@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 8/24/26 3:46 PM, Lukas Wagner wrote: > On Mon Aug 24, 2026 at 2:33 PM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> i'm missing a bit here why we need a wrapper around a type we fully >> control here? couldn't we use NamespacedCache directly? >> >> what advantage has wrapping it in this way? >> >> To me it's not immediately obvious, so a short sentence >> in the commit message or as comment on the struct, would be good. > > Sorry, I'll try to add additional justification in the commit message in > the next iteration. > > NamespacedCache is supposed to be fully generic and eventually be moved > to a shared crate. ApiCache adds PDM-specific semantics, namely having > per-remote namespaces and also one global namespace. > > Before, these additional semantics were encoded in the helper functions > in api_cache.rs (e.g. read_global, read_remote), but since we want to > put this thing in PdmApplication, the helpers are turned into methods of > this new wrapper type. > > Hope with this explanation it makes more sense? yes that makes the patch a bit clearer, thanks for explaining we could still think about building the namespacing into the underlying generic cache struct though, e.g we could have a trait CachePath { fn create_cache_path(&self, input: String) -> String } (or similar) which can be a noop by default, and e.g. pdm can implement a `NamespacedCache` that implements it differently then caller can call directly into the cache object and we don't have to have a wrapper struct. not sure if that's practical though ^^