From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sun Nov 15 13:10:51 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E6DA27E24 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:10:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yonas@fizk.net) Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1E5715FB for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:10:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yonas@fizk.net) Received: by iouu10 with SMTP id u10so130155217iou.0 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 05:10:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fizk.net; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=T+MgI1jvUfB3K7VJW+ukxiSVdtJD1Emsu4uP4ntDU8I=; b=ZBkkK9+QB4PxE3i8HPPAxXEvM2NBVX2+z09owt4JCnx2kPZBGyBTvPWxnRCnCLV9Dd +mwJm1rsgE4f0DhPDIxFmhD42qhJvWpFBOYlF5+VemoK82UrDH8uFXAPvhUAgwjsJrK3 w203Sl0W6gFqYzn2QV4mqU0Zy/4PYZtcnYX2g= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=T+MgI1jvUfB3K7VJW+ukxiSVdtJD1Emsu4uP4ntDU8I=; b=iAhgHq6RF7NPdRx7s1UfQDrc0sZ0N10e8SwEyI2i6r9VkAlbThZX1JJz2eM0WpsgiK KM3Y+30Ew62KogEBWsUGtCRwPc1ttEgH5aD4P3nsYkYIKvFJzDhRTzigm5alxs3urcw5 vD0qUWwoV6XYWDCLbVgxv8gq5sdnehtTNl7GP/wlWDJ2FMzslPBjNj5fbrjXuxXYzxjQ pb1CIvFAtfQsUQ9087OkosF6Cie7yafagtWlfu72rd1LCbGpsJ1OZcGze9e15IezRHg2 AABGnCluTTRyY4B1+W89ujr26tsB7PGDlMQWnSWfvQxOU2FDh8gtLf+hng0ERpxrbGfS BKgw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7c1iP+ALbkJTtTBDAk1GRUfHt9Ntn+5zrPy9dasYG1KupVemC5AwwRqp5ZxsP0YL4EHOD X-Received: by 10.107.6.146 with SMTP id f18mr26680741ioi.46.1447593049899; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 05:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.200] (CPEbc4dfb965b33-CMbc4dfb965b30.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.236.139.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i69sm10194626iod.27.2015.11.15.05.10.48 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 15 Nov 2015 05:10:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues? To: Dan Partelly , freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro> From: Yonas Yanfa Message-ID: <56488457.507@fizk.net> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 08:10:47 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:10:51 -0000 Hi Dan, Sounds like you'd be interested in NextBSD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NextBSD Cheers, Yonas On 11/15/2015 07:54, 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. > 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. > 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. > > 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 ye= ars , but it would be well worth it, and in my opinion it would be also w= orthy of > 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. > > Note: > > this message is serious and it is not intended to start flame wars, rel= igious crusades, or offend anyone. > =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" --=20 Yonas Yanfa In Love With Open Source Drupal :: GitHub=20 :: Mozilla=20 :: iPhone=20 fizk.net | yonas@fizk.net