Hi, On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 11:15:16PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > Today Bernhard Fischer wrote: > > > * I did not include rrd_open(), rrd_close(), rrd_write() and similar > > > functions in the public interface so far as they look like pretty > > > low-level functions which usually are not needed outside of rrdtool. > > > > These functions should be exported since any librrdtool is pretty > > useless without them. > > > > Suppose i want to write a program that opens an rrd and reads one or > > more DS and a varying number of entries from some CF, calculates > > something and returns a result. Currently i would have to do alot of > > what fetch does to achieve this, which doesn't make sense in the light > > of a librrdtool. > > See > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01866.html > > so would > > rrd_open > rrd_read > rrd_close > rrd_tell > rrd_write > > be enough, or should there be more ?
Imho, rrd_flush, rrd_seek and rrd_lock would make sense as well. Also, as those functions use parameters of type rrd_t, I would add rrd_init and rrd_free as well. I'm not quite sure about the purpose of rrd_dontneed but I'd tend to rather include all of those functions or none at all. I think, the interfaces should be fairly stable so we should not run into much problems caused by API/ABI changes. Just my 2 cents ;-) Cheers, Sebastian -- Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
