From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Nov 17 09:09:20 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FF8A303D8 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:09:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AADE71D42; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:09:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (ppp121-45-231-48.lns20.per1.internode.on.net [121.45.231.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id tAH99F5I026467 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 01:09:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues? To: Andrey Chernov , Adrian Chadd , Dan Partelly References: <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro> <702A1341-FB0C-41FA-AB95-F84858A7B3A4@rdsor.ro> <5648C60B.6060205@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current From: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <564AEEB5.10207@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:09:09 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5648C60B.6060205@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:09:20 -0000 On 11/16/15 1:51 AM, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On 15.11.2015 20:37, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On 15 November 2015 at 09:10, Dan Partelly wrote: >>> Meaning, is that simple to push things in head , if somone does the work, even with with no proper review of the problem at hand , and the proposed solutions ? >> Nope and yup. The juniper folk had a solution to a problem multiple >> people had requested work on, and their proposal was by far the >> furthest along code and use wise. >> >> It's all fine and good making technical decisions based on drawings >> and handwaving and philosophizing, but at some point someone has to do >> the code. Juniper's libxo was the furthest along in implementation and >> production. > It seems it is the only and final argument for libXO existence. I > remember 2 or 3 discussions against libXO spontaneously happens in the > FreeBSD lists, all ended with that, approximately: "we already have the > code and you have just speculations". Alternative and more architecture > clean ideas, like making standalone template-oriented parser probably > based on liXO, are never seriously considered, because nobody will code > it, not for other reasons. I believe that was my suggestion.. (thus automatically gaining negative votes from certain scandinavian countries). I still think it is better because it would give a framework for adding templates for third party applications for which libXO will NEVER be an option. LibXO could be the backend for outputing the data. >