On 11/16/15 1:51 AM, Andrey Chernov 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
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.
I believe that was my suggestion.. (thus automatically gaining negative votes from certain scandinavian countries). I still think it is better because it would give a framework for adding templates for third party applications for which libXO will NEVER be an option. LibXO could be the backend for outputing the data.

freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to