Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:51:50 -0700 From: Charlie Kester <corky1951@comcast.net> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make pkg_install suite reusable, please Message-ID: <20100409185150.GC61756@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <q2x3cb459ed1004090736t5a67f315geca1c199a5061e7d@mail.gmail.com> References: <x2ta2585ef1004090716vf74893dfo9d5412455294c64d@mail.gmail.com> <q2x3cb459ed1004090736t5a67f315geca1c199a5061e7d@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri 09 Apr 2010 at 07:36:17 PDT Alexander Churanov wrote: >2010/4/9 Leinier Cruz Salfran <salfrancl.listas@gmail.com> > >> i want to ask you one thing: can you make the 'pkg_install' suite >> reusable .. means install 'libinstall.a' as a shared object in order >> to make it reusable by others devs >> > >Hi Leinier, > >I'd like to add my 50 cents. From my point of view, the true UNIX way is >re-using whole programs. This provides unbelievable isolation and >correctness. If you don't want to fork myriads of processes each second, >then, it's, probably, better to ask for pipe mode of pkg_* tools. For >example, aspell works that way. You start a process, write commands and >queries and read results. +1 It was a watershed moment in my programming career when I realized that the bubbles on those DFD charts we used to use for structured design could be whole processes and not just functions in a single, monolithic program. Suddenly everything the structured design folks were saying about re-use, encapsulation, loose coupling, module cohesion, etc. made a lot more sense when viewed from the perspective of simple Unix utilities communicating with plain text via pipes. We should encourage that approach as a default, and only put things into binary libraries when forced to by performance considerations.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100409185150.GC61756>