> On Nov 15, 2015, at 09:51, Andrey Chernov <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> On 15.11.2015 20:37, Adrian Chadd wrote: >>> On 15 November 2015 at 09:10, Dan Partelly <dan_parte...@rdsor.ro> wrote: >>> Meaning, is that simple to push things in head , if somone does the work, >>> even with with no proper review of the problem at hand , and the proposed >>> solutions ? >> >> Nope and yup. The juniper folk had a solution to a problem multiple >> people had requested work on, and their proposal was by far the >> furthest along code and use wise. >> >> It's all fine and good making technical decisions based on drawings >> and handwaving and philosophizing, but at some point someone has to do >> the code. Juniper's libxo was the furthest along in implementation and >> production. > > It seems it is the only and final argument for libXO existence. I > remember 2 or 3 discussions against libXO spontaneously happens in the > FreeBSD lists, all ended with that, approximately: "we already have the > code and you have just speculations". Alternative and more architecture > clean ideas, like making standalone template-oriented parser probably > based on liXO, are never seriously considered, because nobody will code > it, not for other reasons.
We lack a [dtd/json] spec for tools, so programming for xo'ification doesn't seems like the best idea in the world to me from a end-user sysadmin/developer perspective. I could just as easily use standard tools like awk, grep, sed, and more advanced languages like perl or Python to parse output, and assuming output doesn't get a major rewrite, I'd just go with that method that's worked pretty well for me over the last 10 years of my career.. Cheers, -NGie _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"