On Fri, Sep 13, 2013, William Hubbs wrote: > OpenRC currently has a public api, consisting of librc and libeinfo > (rc.h and einfo.h are the headers); however, I do not know of any > released software that uses these, so, if there is nothing, I am > considering making this code private to OpenRC and getting rid of the > API.
Wow, I didn't realise those were there, at least not as a public API. Thanks for bringing them to light. > I will reconsider if someone tells me there is actual software out > there which links to these libraries besides OpenRC, but if there isn't, > I am inclined to make all of that code private. On Sat, Sep 14, 2013, William Hubbs wrote: > There may be other reasons to keep the api, that's why I put out the > question. Personally I think they are useful: UberLord must have thought that they have wider applicability, eg at the juncture between script and the init-system in terms of implementation. It's easy to eg code a lua or python interface to the API. It also provides a basis for the things qnikst has been discussing in #openrc. WRT your concern about "vertical integration" I don't think that should be a worry. So long as you simply provide the API (which has been stable all this time) and make no bones about what a higher layer does with it, you are not committing any coupling no-nos. It's only an issue at system-level when your code is dependent on what the higher layer is going to do with your output, or requires a specific higher layer to run at all(!). Regards, steveL -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
