From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Aug  6 07:54:16 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA00294
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (eivind@bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA00287
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) id QAA14915; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 16:52:05 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 16:52:05 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <199708061452.QAA14915@bitbox.follo.net>
From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
CC: hans@brandinnovators.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Michael Smith's message of Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:44:52 +0930 (CST)
Subject: Re: Registry reviewers?
References: <199708051050.MAA26530@truk.brandinnovators.com>
	<199708060314.MAA02934@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Hans Zuidam stands accused of saying:
> > > Michael Smith wrote:
> > > If I were to just slip it in parallel with the sysctl code, would anyone
> > > notice?  8)
> > Forgive my ignorance, but what does the registery code actually do that
> > cannot be done with sysctl?
> 
> Is this "in general" or "specifically"?
> 
> The most significant differences are that it uses method-based access
> to data, ie. the node supplies methods rather than a data pointer, and
> it tries harder to hide the innards of the data storage from the
> consumer.

Does it supply inline documentation for each variable?  That is my
main complain with both the windows registry and sysctl - there is no
inline docs.

And where is the code for review?  (And how am I going to find time
for this?  :)

Eivind.