On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Marcin Wisnicki <mwisnicki+free...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:37:27 +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > >> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Alexander Churanov wrote: >> >>> 2010/4/9 Leinier Cruz Salfran <salfrancl.lis...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> i want to ask you one thing: can you make the 'pkg_install' suite >>>> reusable .. means install 'libinstall.a' as a shared object in order >>>> to make it reusable by others devs >>> >>> I'd like to add my 50 cents. From my point of view, the true UNIX way >>> is re-using whole programs. This provides unbelievable isolation and >>> correctness. If you don't want to fork myriads of processes each >>> second, then, it's, probably, better to ask for pipe mode of pkg_* >>> tools. For example, aspell works that way. You start a process, write >>> commands and queries and read results. >> >> While there are clearly benefits to process isolation, there are >> countless situations in UNIX where I've said to myself "Oh, I wish I had >> a lib<foo> not just a <foo> command". This is particularly the case for >> monitoring tools, where third-party applications have a lot of trouble >> parsing and tracking the output of tools like ps(1), etc. This is why >> recently we've been working on libmemstat(3), libprocstat(3), >> libnetstat(3), etc -- so that tools can avoid rewriting that code as >> well as avoid the parsing problem. > > A middle-ground solution to this is to standardise on a common data > exchange format with a schema definition language. With schema you can > autogenerate high level parsers and generators, validators and other things > for free. It does not have to be XML with XML-Schema (though there are good > plaintext schema languages like RelaxNG-compact and you could possibly find > less verbose text encoding for XML). > > If, say ps or ipfw, had a switch like '--format-output-yaml' and > '--print-output-schema' (alternatively schema files could be stored > somewhere in $prefix/share) it would be trivial to use them anywhere. > > The only problem I see is agreeing on a single format and forcing everyone > to use it. Which is probably why it will never happen :( >
hello marcin that can be a smart solution but i prefer to use functions directly from library .. i think it's better well, alexander .. i must to follow your first suggestion: use 'pkg_*' commands (meanwhile) .. i plan to make this software usable to netbsd and openbsd too .. i'm not sure but maybe they have the same situation and for that reason i think use the commands is the way to follow i want to count on you to do more questions and surveys _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
