Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:42:28 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@cell.sick.ru> To: harti@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Nodes having common properties. Was: kern/63864: [patch] new control message for ng_iface(4) - getifindex Message-ID: <20040319134228.GB39787@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040319141700.J42356@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <200403072302.i27N2StR008804@freefall.freebsd.org> <20040308102033.GA66247@cell.sick.ru> <20040308212939.GB30394@ip.net.ua> <20040308214820.GA68803@cell.sick.ru> <20040309065356.GA55139@ip.net.ua> <20040309185957.GB74537@cell.sick.ru> <20040316230130.GA20251@cell.sick.ru> <20040319115814.E41950@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20040319123329.GA39103@cell.sick.ru> <20040319141700.J42356@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 02:24:47PM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote: H> From the point of code duplication and extendibility both approaches are H> equivalent. In the second case you have the same three lines in the rcvmsg H> function of every node that supports a given familiy (this is reduceable H> to 1 line by defining appropriate macros), in the first one you have the H> same line in every constructor. Perhaps I made not clear that the message H> handling function for the familiy is not in the node's code nor in the H> netgraph base code, but in a family file (in both cases) and module. I understand, now. If ng_process_family_xxx_msg() is out of node, than you are right - approeaches are equivalent. H> But I have no strong opinion: either way does it as long as it allows H> multiple interfaces to a given node. OK, let's wait for reply from someone in Cc: :) -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040319134228.GB39787>