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. -- http://ache.vniz.net/ _______________________________________________ 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"
