On 02/25/09 14:20, James Carlson wrote: > Michael Schuster writes: >>> Why wouldn't you call the libkstat(3LIB) functions to read the values >>> directly? >> 1) we already have the script from the prototype phase; adapting that to >> current needs seems much less work than re-writing. >> 2) independent of 1), I think shell and awk lend themselves nicely to this >> kind of string manipulation work. > > OK. As I said, I think it's a matter of completeness for libilb. As > long as it'll never be expected to extract statistics, I suppose what > you're suggesting is fine. Actually, I think it's *much* better than > exec-ing from libilb, unless the library (in that case) would actually > parse the script output. > > I don't think libraries generally should be in the business of dumping > random crud to stdout.
agreed 100%. > It makes building GUIs and other library users > much harder. I wasn't implying that (was I?) - rather, the alternate approach would have been for ilbd to do the extracting and piping of data back to ilbadm. Michael -- Michael Schuster http://blogs.sun.com/recursion Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'
