Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:51:07 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com>, Dan Partelly <dan_partelly@rdsor.ro> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues? Message-ID: <5648C60B.6060205@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmoniBAmWTf9MkCCMYhRbPLc=0%2Bz5kRSijXfqX9VZvm8jDg@mail.gmail.com> References: <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro> <CAJ-Vmokfo_BGWji9TrgQ40oRxqht9-2iEZVon7aQxR_93Ufxyg@mail.gmail.com> <702A1341-FB0C-41FA-AB95-F84858A7B3A4@rdsor.ro> <CAJ-VmoniBAmWTf9MkCCMYhRbPLc=0%2Bz5kRSijXfqX9VZvm8jDg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15.11.2015 20:37, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 15 November 2015 at 09:10, Dan Partelly <dan_partelly@rdsor.ro> wrote: >> Meaning, is that simple to push things in head , if somone does the work, even with with no proper review of the problem at hand , and the proposed solutions ? > > Nope and yup. The juniper folk had a solution to a problem multiple > people had requested work on, and their proposal was by far the > furthest along code and use wise. > > It's all fine and good making technical decisions based on drawings > and handwaving and philosophizing, but at some point someone has to do > the code. Juniper's libxo was the furthest along in implementation and > production. It seems it is the only and final argument for libXO existence. I remember 2 or 3 discussions against libXO spontaneously happens in the FreeBSD lists, all ended with that, approximately: "we already have the code and you have just speculations". Alternative and more architecture clean ideas, like making standalone template-oriented parser probably based on liXO, are never seriously considered, because nobody will code it, not for other reasons. -- http://ache.vniz.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5648C60B.6060205>