On
30.12.2011 07:20, Michael Terry wrote:
Yeah, query_info is newer than the get/put calls and was done in a way
to allow individual backends to provide optimized ways of asking.
So if a backend can query multiple files at the same cost as one file,
it should implement _query_list_info. Otherwise, it should implement
the simpler _query_file_info.
A backend shouldn't reimplement query_info itself.
-mt
On 29 December 2011 19:43, Ken Bass<address@hidden> wrote:
Hi,
I am writing a backend (for the idrive/ibackup online storage) and am
confused about the query_info().
Is a backend supposed to (optionally) provide query_info, or
_query_list_info or _query_file_info? It is rather confusing as to which is
really supposed to be provided and I wasn't sure what the leading underscore
was for.
Initially I was just thinking of providing my own query_info, which is
consistent with implementing other calls such as get, put, delete, but then
when I looked at some other backend code, I noticed _boto, couldfiles, gio,
local and u1 all go the _query_file_info route. No one appears to be simply
implementing the query_info themselves.
_______________________________________________
Duplicity-talk mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
_______________________________________________
Duplicity-talk mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
______________________________
_________________
Duplicity-talk mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk