On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:39:21AM -0500, Peter Memishian wrote: > > > Like I mentioned in a mail to Eric, that there is always the chance that > > other libraries need to call libdladm functions, if libdladm is where we > put > > all general functions. I gave the example of the datalink configuration > API, > > which we are currently making as a part of libdladm. The above example > shows > > why we need liblaadm to call datalink configuration APIs. > > OK. Another design we should seriously consider is merging liblaadm, > libwladm and libdladm into a single library. If there is no longer a > clear boundary between the layers (which seems to be the case if things > frequently need to call into one another), then merging into a common > library may be the simplest approach. Alternatively, it may make sense to > merge just certain parts -- e.g., APIs that deal with persistent > configuration (since we now have a single persistent configuration). >
merging all of them is likely simpler because you won't have to change any code to use a registration mechanism. eric
