Made out of LEGO bricks. What you’re describing doesn’t match my experience last time I looked at it. I will look again. This is why I asked: because I need help. This is the most information I’ve gotten about it. I’m sorry my comments come across as saying the software is bad. That’s not what i was trying to communicate.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:47 PM Markus Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > First off, hnetd was team effort - me, Pierre Pfister and Steven Barth. > > Secondly, I did not particularly want to promote hnetd but 'existing > implementations are bad, boo hoo' argument gets old and I think e.g. > https://github.com/jech/shncpd is also quite sufficient. I use even > https://github.com/fingon/pysyma 'in production' even now (admittedly not > HNCP bits of it, but DNCP + SHSP :->). > > On 09.11.2018, at 2.03, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > > The issue with the code (IIRC) is that it requires cmake to compile, for > no obvious reason, and cmake is hard to get working, so e.g. building it on > MacOS X is a major porting task. And it depends on libraries that I don't > have. And there's no layering of the configuration system aspect of the > architecture—it just goes and bashes on interfaces and stuff (this is my > recollection—I haven't looked at it in a year or so). > > There's some distinct parts that have well defined interfaces (as far as > those 'well defined' go in C anyway) - DNCP (dncp_*), /HNCP code (hncp_*), > prefix assignment code (pa_*), and operating system (platform_*) are all > pretty loosely coupled. > > I have compiled the DNCP(/partial HCNP) bits on OS X with relatively minor > modifications for my hobby project for example. > > > These are not bad things that Markus did. Markus was doing what he > needed to do to get it running on OpenWRT. But these are real issues, > which are preventing me from using the code. For someone who is not an > HNCP expert to hack on the code is difficult, and would require substantial > work. I could do it, but I have other things I'm working on. If the > code were more modular, I could experiment with it. This is the problem I > was trying to express. > > I have used it also unmodified on plain Linux number of times. If you want > to use it on something more esotreic, I could bet on OS X port being doable > but as lots of HNCP value comes from interfacing with system servers, I do > not see anyone writing platform interface for it. > > I am curious about what 'more modular' code looks like. Separate DLLs? > Single function call API between modules? Possibly made out of Lego bricks? > > Cheers, > > -Markus
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
