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 in base > and after some funny minutes, I couldn't stop ask myself “ Ok, this is funny > , but why ? “ And I couldn't find a real answer. Ill outline what I think: > > > 1. Undoubtedly, it makes base code slightly harder to understand and > maintain. > 2. I have seen the idea that this makes the information dumped by utilities > in the base easily accessible programatically. OK, maybe it does , but > it doesn't fit with the current paradigm of "tool | filter | tool” at all. > There are no tools able to accept JSON and filter it in any meaningful 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 possibility in a > world where too much choices already result in too much splits 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, much 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 solaris does. > > 5. A port of partial OS config data to UCL …. would induce yet induce another > orthogonality violation. What makes UCL better than the bestiary of ad hoc > databases already existing in BSDs ? Programatic readability, 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 , transactional, and ACL protected > solution which can be used all over the place , from OS boot, to ABI > management, service management, network management, user 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 config and system state easy > with wrapper APIs. In the light of this point, why go with UCL ? It is not > orthogonal, it is not transnational, and editing the config files directly > would result in the same old human errors 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 insight offered > by Windows :P) , then inventing more adhoc solutions and ad-hoc databases, > which do not address the real issues we have , like binary code reuse, > service management issues, lack of a system wide published -subscriber bus ( > not kdbus :P ) fault detection and reaction, fault reporting, 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 regarding > those issues ? A period of research on what exists, on what can be done , > 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 years , > but it would be well worth it, and in my opinion it would be also worthy of > the freeSBD foundation sponsorship for several years in a row. The features 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, religious > crusades, or offend anyone. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
