From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 11 01:06:12 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB1D37B401 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bluejay.mail.pas.earthlink.net (bluejay.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB76843FA3 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:06:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-38lc0s4.dialup.mindspring.com ([209.86.3.132] helo=mindspring.com) by bluejay.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19Q0cO-00052p-00; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:06:05 -0700 Message-ID: <3EE6E275.8931A6DF@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:04:05 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Leimbach References: <33DC1B1E-9BA4-11D7-8AE4-0003937E39E0@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a47f0f20cadfccc2f49ca2ec846bee285ba8438e0f32a48e08350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: Martin Blapp cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libevent for FreeBSD ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 08:06:12 -0000 David Leimbach wrote: > Interesting. I don't believe it needs to be in the source tree. > > I am not saying its bad code or isn't useful... I just don't understand > what it has to do with FreeBSD. Does any of the other base code need this > library? > > If so it would already be there wouldn't it? It's like Java: a platform independent API for programmers to use in creating platform dependent code. You pay some performance penalty for using it instead of writing to native interfaces, and in return, you get some source level portability to platforms that you may or may not really be interested in running on at some point (perhaps far in the future). If you are using this, you probably aren't overly concerned with squeezing the last ounce of performance out of your application, and you probably are writing some program that has to run either in a lot of places, or has to be portable to an unknown deployment platform. And once the deployment platform is known, you will probably rewrite to the native interfaces anyway. This isn't to say it's not useful, just that its use has a fairly limited scope and application, IMO. -- Terry