The point of passing possible_transports is basically so that we can reuse some connection objects, and that's mostly important for remote transports, which this won't be at present. I think the current approach of manually passing it down is not working very well and we should probably look at putting it into the library state instead.
[tweak] However, for this patch, I don't think it's either used or particularly useful (since making new local transports is cheap), so you could just remove the parameter.
[suggestion] I'm not a big fan of creating new classes that only have different initial state, not different behaviour, so I would probably just make this a factory method.
Aside from that, this looks great. It could be good to get a review from vila too.
+class SystemGlobalSto re(LockableIniF ileStore) : transports= None): get_transport_ from_path( system_ config_ dir(), transports= possible_ transports) balStore, self).__init__(t, 'bazaar.conf')
+
+ def __init__(self, possible_
+ t = transport.
+ possible_
+ super(SystemGlo
The point of passing possible_transports is basically so that we can reuse some connection objects, and that's mostly important for remote transports, which this won't be at present. I think the current approach of manually passing it down is not working very well and we should probably look at putting it into the library state instead.
[tweak] However, for this patch, I don't think it's either used or particularly useful (since making new local transports is cheap), so you could just remove the parameter.
[suggestion] I'm not a big fan of creating new classes that only have different initial state, not different behaviour, so I would probably just make this a factory method.
Aside from that, this looks great. It could be good to get a review from vila too.