Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 15 Aug 2014 21:52:54 -0700
From:      "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>
To:        Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
Cc:        Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org>, Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: XML Output: libxo - provide single API to output TXT, XML, JSON and HTML
Message-ID:  <20140816045254.5F47E580A2@chaos.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <53EEA74B.9070107@mu.org>
References:  <201408141640.s7EGe422096656@idle.juniper.net> <53ED57F2.5020808@mu.org> <20140815053604.9E40B580A2@chaos.jnpr.net> <53EDB0EF.6090902@mu.org> <20140815173830.93832580A2@chaos.jnpr.net> <53EEA74B.9070107@mu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:35:23 -0700, Alfred Perlstein writes:
>>> How many programs have been successfully converted over to libxo at this
>>> point?
>> How is that relevant to any of this discussion?
>>
>Well, it speaks towards the vision of getting this done in a timely 
>manner.  As I said there is a GSOC project that has a ton of code 
>already done.  

Yes but as previously pointed out, the approach taken is far from ideal,
[we previously rejected the idea of trying to contribute that approach]
I think libxo will provide a much better result.

>If this libxo is ready to go in, it should go in and we 

No objection here. 
There are a small number of apps that we particularly want converted,
which we would propose as examples.

The purpose of this thread was to illicit feedback on the idea and guage
acceptance of the proposed API - which you have to admit isn't as cosy
and comforting as printf, but is pretty palatable considering the
functionality provided.

On that front I think we are looking good.  
There has been very useful discussion on a number of points.
I don't think I have spotted any fundamental objection to the idea.

It is probably easier for Phil to commit to our internal mirror.
We can take the next steps from there.

>should get towards converting more utils to using it.  However if we are 
>going to perpetually add frameworky things, but not convert over 
>userland tools to the actual framework, then that is a potential problem 
>worth calling out.

Indeed.  Again that's why I prefer to see this (the library at least)
done by someone who's been doing this sort of thing successfuly for
ages.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140816045254.5F47E580A2>