Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:26:11 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: syscons extension: "propellers" Message-ID: <49477.945206771@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:26:04 %2B0100." <199912142026.VAA29478@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm not yet 100% convinced that it would make sense to separate > the propellers code into a module. Is 5 Kbyte of kernel code > really that much of a problem? Please note that I certainly wouldn't argue this based on size, no. To understand the point I was arguing, consider what would have been the case if the very first screen saver had been hacked straight into syscons rather than making it an optional component. We'd probably have 2 or 3 screensavers at most now, each one being even more of a pain to write than they are now since there was no standardized interface for writing or loading screensavers (in fact, I'd have to say that our existing interface is still pretty weak and should be something more in AfterDark's class of abstraction if we're really seeking to do things right, but I digress :). So I see it with "propellers" - they're an optional feature component and there should be a way of bolting such optional features into syscons without having to recompile the kernel. It's not a question of size, it's a question of design and flexibility and I can argue from such a purist's perspective because I'm not doing any of the work involved and it's thus really easy to do so. :-) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49477.945206771>