Nicolas, What do you think?
Thanks - Cathy > Cc'ed Nicolas. > > > Peter Memishian wrote: >> > > 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). >> > >> > Just wondering, what is the original design rationale those >> > link layer manipulation libraries should be separated? >> >> You probably need to ask Nicolas Droux about the justification for >> liblaadm. As with most WiFi architecture, the split between libwladm and >> libdladm is covered in PSARC/2006/623's materials (lib-wifi.txt). In >> short, we were following existing precedent with liblaadm, and we thought >> we might want to make libwladm a public API (since other Unix variants >> have them) apart from libdladm. Of course, that latter part could be >> implemented as a filter library over libdladm. > > > I guess we need to hear from Nicolas about this before > deciding if it is a good idea to merge the libraries. > There may be a very important design reason why liblaadm > is a separate library and we'd better follow that. > >
