From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sun Nov 15 18:05:10 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 269A5A2F4B9 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 18:05:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E73881154; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 18:05:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: by igl9 with SMTP id 9so44595818igl.0; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:05:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NTG9l96nFNCm7CFamKXP1G+dNTLpOHKQ0K9rr/JUeQc=; b=Zloezj7I7tVqHzlrB1G5IQNjVHffPvQfrJ8d5DMXwzuc/24lnxKn4GC9S2K0X4oKMy W9Y2I+GNy4yvvhCZoYxIKK9n2je3cTu3wq97bfeBjSM+EokAuirDuioiksb+3kZtTdQC lZV+sZvIlh5ruAGaJRzbAMi9OiWbfmoFrKhc9Va3pPlWE7j8t9EPZu1A6odju7g0hV4j 67sd/b9I6xI84kcrPEiRIvNxVtJWsa3qvkSEHMZ7NwZCivaElvNtzPa0jXtHCmMzhJhS i+hpQSJ/YVVTfJ4thUntpQt+crk/AqZ1pk64KsrCNRcoKRI6K2ejJQv3I22q5bQCbvnR c9dg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.62.104 with SMTP id x8mr11974347igr.22.1447610709305; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.217.196 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:05:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5648C60B.6060205@freebsd.org> References: <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro> <702A1341-FB0C-41FA-AB95-F84858A7B3A4@rdsor.ro> <5648C60B.6060205@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:05:09 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues? From: Adrian Chadd To: Andrey Chernov Cc: Dan Partelly , freebsd-current Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 18:05:10 -0000 On 15 November 2015 at 09:51, 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. Right. Technical progress is made when people do some work. You can do all the planning and designing you want, but computers available today run on code, not on hopes and dreams. :) I'd love to see the libxo stuff morph into a split between Allan/others idea of "libify things" and "stuff that handles output serialisation". Someone just has to do the design and do the code. So, who wants to code up the template driven, library-for-access, library-for-output-serialisation pieces? That's what we can commit. :) -adrian