Konrad Rzeszutek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 02:07:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Short intro: I'm a long time Linux an and developer. Since Sept 1st I work
>> for
>> RedHat on the installer team (anaconda the installer for Fedora and RHEL).
>>
>> We currently make all kind of calls to iscsiadm in the installer and then
>> parse
>> the output for our iscsi functionality. This is a bit of a kludge and
>> somewhat
>> error prone.
>>
>> Therefore we would like to export (some) of the functionality of iscsiadm as
>> a
>> C-library. I've discussed this a bit with Mike Christie and we arived add
>> doing
>> a library which hides all open-iscsi's internals (no existing headers used
>> in
>> the libraries public headers) so that changes to open-iscsi can still be
>> done
>> easily without breaking the library's API.
>>
>> I've got documentation of the proposed API here:
>> http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/html/libiscsi_8h.html
>>
>> And the attached patch implements this, as you see only very minimal changes
>> to
>> the existing code are needed, the library code is all in its own dir, and
>> wraps
>> various files under the usr dir.
>>
>> The API currently offers pretty minimal functionality (just what we need in
>> anaconda) I'm fine with extending this (patches welcome). But currently I
>> would
>> like to focus on the set of functionality as the current API offers and try
>> to
>> get that right. Most important here is to have a clean, clear and usable API
>> which is also future proof, as I want to freeze the ABI of the available
>
> I would recommend that you provide as the first variable in all of the structs
> an unsigned int called 'version'. This way if the structs are extended they
> would be backwards compatible and there is an easy way to identify which
> version of structs they are.
>
Erm, given the amount of programs which will probably end up using this (not
all that much) a distro should be able to easily rebuild all those in case of
an ABI change and thus a soname bump. I understand what you are trying to say
here, but IMHO the added complexity and ugliness is not worth it.
Regards,
Hans
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"open-iscsi" group.
To post to this group, send email to open-iscsi@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
open-iscsi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-iscsi
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
