On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:14:39PM +0100, Simon Hobson wrote: [...] > But one thing I did pick up on, one of the reasons given > for not having any subdivision was a desire to not have to > have documented and stable APIs. I find that "a tad > off-putting" because in the projects I used to work in > (many many years ago, working as a very junior engineer in > a shipyard supplying the navy with bespoke vessels) that > would have been one of the earliest parts to be nailed > down - split the "blob" into small parts, each doing > something understandable and testable, and have them all > communicating via fixed* and documented interfaces. > * Fixed, as in "can be changed if it has to, but it'll need all the change > control that goes with it". > Reading that the ability to change internal APIs on a whim is seen as a > positive attribute suggests to me that this isn't something that's been > designed before it's been built. > I know our methods weren't what you might call "agile", but they were > intended to give some expectation of reliability.
I understand that systemd developers guarantee some APIs, such as DBus, and others are less constrained. I think the idea is to keep stable the interfaces most important to external developers. -- Joel Roth _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
