сб, 4 июл. 2020 г. в 08:11, Hiroki Sato <h...@freebsd.org>: > Mateusz Piotrowski <0...@freebsd.org> wrote > in <34921b6e-ce3a-13e4-0cc1-3ca47b5a9...@freebsd.org>: > > 0m> > I am planning to revisit the multi-instance support shortly because > I > 0m> > am using it for a long time and I think it is useful. While I did > 0m> > not receive a strong objection to it so far, it is also true that > 0m> > adopting the set_rcvar() style was not discussed properly. I would > 0m> > like more feedback before moving forward. > 0m> > 0m> AFAIR, manu@ was concerned at some point that using set_rcvar() > extensively > 0m> might result in slowdowns on embedded systems. > > A discussion in the past about the performance was an additional > fork(2) when using set_rcvar() for rc_var=`set_rcvar`. The use case > of the resurrected one is "set_rcvar A B" as a replacement of "A=B", > and it does not involve a subshell. > > I agree that the performance perspective should also be discussed, > though. The current rc.subr and network.subr already have more > expensive operations, so we might want to gather profiling > information. > > Thanks a lot for the answers!
It's great that the only existed concern is not a problem anymore for the resurrected "set_rcvar A B" form. IMO features like setting variable description and ability to "ask" rc script what variables/options are available are really great even without multi-instance support. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"