Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:09:40 -0600
From:      Elizabeth Myers <elizabeth@interlinked.me>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?
Message-ID:  <564A0DD4.7030505@interlinked.me>
In-Reply-To: <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro>
References:  <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15/11/15 06:54, Dan Partelly wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was looking at the new facility of dumping JSON,XML from many utils i=
n base and after some funny minutes, I couldn't stop ask myself =E2=80=9C=
 Ok, this is funny , but why ? =E2=80=9C And I couldn't find a real answe=
r. Ill outline what I think:
>
>
> 1. Undoubtedly, it makes base code slightly harder to understand and ma=
intain.=20
> 2. I have seen the idea that this makes the information dumped by utili=
ties in the base easily accessible programatically. OK, maybe it does , b=
ut
> it doesn't fit with the current paradigm of "tool | filter | tool=E2=80=
=9D at all. There are no tools able to accept JSON and filter it in any m=
eaningful way, and I
> dont see too many ppl changing their code to read JSON instead of text.=
  I don't even see the base tools changing. This output may be useful in =
corner cases only.
> 3. The integration of libxo IMO only points at a much deeper issue IMO.=
 It is only an expression of the need of a mechanism aimed at binary code=
 reuse. But it does not solve the problem, it only adds yet another possi=
bility in a world where too much choices already result in too much split=
s and incompatible APIs.=20
> 4. This whole effort would have been IMO much better served  by porting=
 the bulk of ifconfig(8) , route(8) and wpaclient(8) to a library API, mu=
ch like the libs for geom, zfs , etc , ready for reuse of 3rd party code.=
 Eventually writing network control daemons in time over it , much like s=
olaris does.
>
> 5. A port of partial OS config data to UCL =E2=80=A6. would induce yet =
induce another orthogonality violation. What makes UCL better than the be=
stiary of ad hoc databases already existing in BSDs ? Programatic readabi=
lity, yes. but it does not add any real much needed functionality such as=
 *transactional databases* for system tools.   Why not research a proper =
solution - easily accessible by other programs ,orthogonal , transactiona=
l, and ACL protected   solution  which can be used all over the place , f=
rom OS boot, to ABI management, service management, network management, u=
ser management.  I hope this day will come, a day when I will not have to=
 edit a single config file manually, yet I would have access to all the c=
onfig and system state  easy with wrapper APIs. In the light of this poin=
t, why go with UCL ? It is not orthogonal, it is not transnational, and e=
diting the config files directly would result in the same old human error=
s which bite as all from time to time.
>
> 5. It is my opinion that Solaris addressed some of those issue. Solaris=
 FMRI and SMF are lightyears ahead of the very tired models we keep using=
 on BSDs. Why not build on the insight offered by those (or even on the i=
nsight offered by Windows :P) , then inventing more adhoc solutions and a=
d-hoc databases, which do not address the real issues we have , like bina=
ry code reuse, service management issues,  lack of a system wide publishe=
d -subscriber bus ( not kdbus :P ) fault detection and reaction, fault re=
porting, all much needed parts of a modern OS.=20
>
> And now thee questions
>
> 1. Why lib XO ? Why burden the OS for some corner cases where it may be=
 useful ?
>
> 2. Was there any real talk on how to bring FreeBSD up to speed regardin=
g those issues ?  A period of research on what exists, on what can be don=
e , and ensure important things are not showed in background and replaced=
 with yet another ad-hoc config database which lacks modern features ?
> From where I am standing, this could be a project spawning multiple yea=
rs , but it would be well worth it, and in my opinion it would be also wo=
rthy of=20
> the freeSBD foundation sponsorship for several years in a row. The feat=
ures I touched upon became very important parts of oder OSes, and rightly=
 so.=20
>
> Note:
>
> this message is serious and it is not intended to start flame wars, rel=
igious crusades, or offend anyone.=20
> =20
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.o=
rg"

It seems to boil down to the golden rule: he who has the gold, makes the
rules. Juniper wanted it, they're a non-trivial donor to the FreeBSD
foundation and employ many devs, so they got their way.

That's all there is to it.

--
Regards,
Elizabeth Myers





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?564A0DD4.7030505>