Simon Hobson <li...@thehobsons.co.uk> writes: > 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'.
[...] > 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. The whole point of having an IPC-system like D-BUS is that people can do stuff like "add five more structure members and transmit the remaining ones in the opposite order" easily whenever they feel the urge to do so. And why would someone want to document throwaway ideas not even their originators consider particularly sensible in their own right, that is, outside of the context of the problem they're supposed to work around? _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
