Rainer Weikusat <rainerweiku...@virginmedia.com> wrote: > That's a long rant about 'systemd architecture' with an inflammatory > subject someone posted to the systemd devel list. It didn't receive any > replies more noteworthy than the original text which is 'hardly > surprising'.
Ah, I'm not alone in thinking that then - should I feel "a bit sick" finding myself agreeing with system-d supporters ? But one thing I did pick up on, one of the reasons given for not having any subdivision was a desire to not have to have documented and stable APIs. I find that "a tad off-putting" because in the projects I used to work in (many many years ago, working as a very junior engineer in a shipyard supplying the navy with bespoke vessels) that would have been one of the earliest parts to be nailed down - split the "blob" into small parts, each doing something understandable and testable, and have them all communicating via fixed* and documented interfaces. * Fixed, as in "can be changed if it has to, but it'll need all the change control that goes with it". Reading that the ability to change internal APIs on a whim is seen as a positive attribute suggests to me that this isn't something that's been designed before it's been built. I know our methods weren't what you might call "agile", but they were intended to give some expectation of reliability. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
