On 11/16/15 1:51 AM, Andrey Chernov wrote:
On 15.11.2015 20:37, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 15 November 2015 at 09:10, Dan Partelly <dan_parte...@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.
I believe that was my suggestion.. (thus automatically gaining
negative votes from certain scandinavian countries).
I still think it is better because it would give a framework for
adding templates for third party applications for which
libXO will NEVER be an option. LibXO could be the backend for
outputing the data.
_______________________________________________
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"
