Sorry for the delay...

В Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:58:19 +0200
Felix Fietkau <[email protected]> пишет:

> On 2011-03-30 5:43 PM, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > В Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:17:01 +0200
> > Jo-Philipp Wich<[email protected]>  пишет:
> >
> >>  Hi,
> >>
> >>  no I have no list yet but it boils down to the fact that the current
> >>  network and interface setup mechanisms are rather constrained, old and
> >>  inflexible.
> >>
> >>  Big problems are the lack of statefulness, the tendency for race
> >>  conditions, the inability to properly nest protocols and the limited
> >>  featureset of the ash shell which will not allow for complex interface
> >>  operations like calculating ULAs etc.
> >>
> >>  Felix has started working on netifd, which will at some point supersede
> >>  the current network setup scripts with an rpc capable daemon written in
> >>  C for better access to kernel APIs, ability to listen on netlink events 
> >> etc.
> >>
> >>  Once this is done, we can start to implement all the IPv6 requirements
> >>  in a clean way.
> >
> > Very interesting, but there are also projects like connman
> > (connman.net) or network manager. I think the latter is bloated but the
> > former is intended for embedded devices from the very beginning. What's
> > wrong with connman?
> connman seems to be centered around one specifific use case - having a 
> mobile device access the internet through multiple connections.
> 
> netifd will be able to manage even complex interface configurations with 
> a mix of bonding, vlans, bridges, etc. and handle the dependencies 
> between interfaces properly - and of course all that without adding 
> unnecessary bloat.
> 
> > BTW, what's the difference between ubus and dbus? I didn't find any
> > documentation...
> D-Bus is bloated, the pure C API is very annoying to use and requires 
> writing large amounts of boilerplate code. In fact, the pure C API is so 
> annoying that its API documentation even states: "If you use this 
> low-level API directly, you're signing up for some pain."
> 
> ubus is tiny (12k library, 13k daemon, 6k CLI) and requires only two 
> small libraries (json-c for the CLI only, and libubox).
> 
> It has the advantage of being easy to use from regular C code, as well 
> as automatically making all exported API functionality also available to 
> shell scripts with no extra effort.
> 
> - Felix

Very-very cool, good luck! Hope both projects will once supersede
today's leaders not only in the embedded world. Looking forward for the
first release of netifd. Hope I would be able to help you in some way.

-- 
  Alexander

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Reply via email to