On 30/06/15 13:25, Wei Liu wrote:
For "2", it doesn't sound feasible to add support to the rumprun command
line syntax. Therefore, we'd have to add support for passing blocks of
handcrafted json. Do we want to go there? If yes, should the custom blocks
be handled by the monolithic rumpconfig, or should there be some mechanism
of linking in components which do their own json parsing, and simply sending
the custom blocks off to custom parsers? Support for custom json handlers
probably in the order of 25 lines of code, but what does it do for
user-perceived complexity?
I'm (almost) certain we'll need "1" sooner or later. I'm not (entirely)
convinced we'll need "2". Thoughts?
I'm almost certain with my rump kernel user hat on I don't want #2 (pass
in handcrafted json) because I shouldn't care about internal details.
Once that mechanism is live you carry the burden of supporting it
forever (well, as least for quite some time until you're sure nobody
uses that anymore).
While I agree that a user shouldn't care about internal details, once
needs become special enough, users do need to care about details,
because nobody else has cared about abstracting those particular details
earlier. #2 is more about a mechanism for any user to be able to
specify arbitrary configurations than it is interacting with some
preexisting internal detail. But, like I noted in a later email in the
thread, it's actually more or less the same thing as #1.
(I'm on vacation now so I'm not very responsive with emails. Sorry.)
Ok, you can vacation with ease since I think this issue is now solved ;)
Talk to you when you get back!
- antti
