Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 09:25:02 -0800 From: Harrison Grundy <harrison.grundy@astrodoggroup.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Massive libxo-zation that breaks everything Message-ID: <54F34B6E.2040809@astrodoggroup.com> In-Reply-To: <54F31510.7050607@hot.ee> References: <54F31510.7050607@hot.ee>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/01/15 05:33, Sulev-Madis Silber (ketas) wrote: > Hello. > > First, I would be happy to have JSON and XML output about > filesystems, users, routes... but I don't like how it makes code of > df, w, netstat hard to read/maintain and often broken. > > I don't think it would be good to continue with this. Maybe the > effort should be put to creating new layer/library and then > something on top of it that actually outputs JSON and XML. > > Or, if that's too difficult... maybe just regular df/w/netstat > could be copied to somewhere else and made code libxo-output-only. > And original df/w/netstat changes reverted and left alone. > > Then, maybe later, df/w/netstat/... could be updated to this new > layer/library. Or maybe this should be just left as it is. > > That would mean having two netstat's in system, which could be both > good (separation) and bad (maintaining). > > Just some ideas... I don't know how to solve this issue fully. I'm > also not likely the one who would write code for all this. Hell, > those aren't even all my ideas here. I just worry that system > drop-in xo-zation is bad for overall health of base. > > Oh and, it makes rescue larger and more complex, too? On that, > there was suggestion to maybe create separate "first aid kit" and > "emergency room" types of system rescue utils/methods. > > > Thanks. _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To > unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Forgive my ignorance about exactly what this is, and possibly reviving a long-settled debate, but this sounds like something that would be a great deal more useful as a port/package, rather than in base. Due to the lack of XML parsing code in -base, the difficulty in maintaining yet another interface, and the overhead involved in doing it, I don't quite see where one would really want XML output *and* be entirely opposed to ports or packages. If someone could summarize what this is, I'd greatly appreciate it. --- Harrison
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54F34B6E.2040809>