Hello Eitan, On 11:41 Tue 02 May , Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > I really do not like this patch. I think that although it does not break > the code TODAY, it will be reversed later. > OpenSM uses the concept of "manager" for each of the algorithms used. > One could claim that all these managers are redundant and could be > replaced by an extension to the osm object. This is true but will result > with a non clear boundary between the managers.
"manager" concept is fine, but I don't see how useless structure should help in implementing this. OTOH there are tons of duplications and unnecessary code in OpenSM today - we need to improve this. > Although there is no right or wrong on this kind of issues, I think that > the winning argument is that today OpenSM is written according to the > above simple rule. Hmm, so what is your argument - "it is so now, don't change it"? But the goal is to improve things. Sasha. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
