On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 05:06:46PM +0000, Geva, Erez wrote: > Do you have another suggestion?
>From a technical POV, I think that the pmc_common.c file does not provide you very much at all. It does not, IMHO, rise to the level of substance for a real shared library. So the very idea of libpmc seems not worth it to me. You could just copy the .c and .h files into your project and use them directly. For the linuxptp project, I made the decision early on for a strong process model using the management interface straight out of IEEE 1588. The separation into ptp4l, phc2sys, and pmc follows from using that model. There are pros and cons to every design choice, of course, and some things would have been easier with one giant blob encompassing the functionally of ptp4l and phc2sys, like handling changes in port state for example. The choice of license was also a conscious one from the very beginning of the project, and I still stand by that decision. I do believe this is part of the reason for the success of the project. It might be useful to have a general purpose PTP monitoring library under a more permissive license for use in applications, but I imagine a much more ambitious scope, including things like PTP network discovery, alarms, graphs, GUI dashboards, and so on. In fact, I hoped someone else would take up the monitoring topic, and so I kept pmc simple, as a minimal example program. In any case, if you or somebody would like to start such a project, I would be supportive. Heck, I might even contribute now and again... Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
