Signed-off-by: oppiliappan me@oppi.li
+49
appview/repo/archive.go
+219
appview/repo/blob.go
+95
appview/repo/branches.go
+214
appview/repo/compare.go
+1
-1
appview/repo/feed.go
+1
-1
appview/repo/index.go
+223
appview/repo/log.go
+1
-1
appview/repo/opengraph.go
+71
-1439
appview/repo/repo.go
+14
-14
appview/repo/router.go
+442
appview/repo/settings.go
+107
appview/repo/tree.go
History
3 rounds
5 comments
expand 0 comments
expand 0 comments
expand 5 comments
other than that, I'm 100% supportive to this idea.
I'd prefer we didn't. Go file name convention dictates using an underscore only when needed; I believe the the "handler" bit here is implicit.
perhaps that prefix would make sense if and when we introduce the service layer that we spoke about in earlier conversations.
I don't care much about pascelCase, but I wish we name "handler" explicitly. The repo module itself is already quite ambiguous by mixed with non-handler modules like appview/db.
So we can put the handler prefix to either repo module or each files. And for this case, as the commit message says we are splitting handlers into separate files, so putting prefix for individual files make sense.
I prefer prefix rather than suffix because it makes easier to spot non-prefixed files (like routers or util files) from file explorer.
I would like to add
handler_prefix for all of those files. It will make file navigation way easier. Like https://tangled.org/@hailey.at/cocoon/tree/main/server