On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 07:45:13PM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
> Ceri Davies wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 12:26:17PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 06:56:24PM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
> [snip]
> > > I think a KSH93 version of smf_include.sh that uses more built-ins would
> > > be great, but then we'd have to manage code duplication until the day
> > > arrives that we feel fine mandating KSH93 for SMF method scripts. I
> > > wouldn't mind that code duplication, but others might.
> >
> > I think the performance improvement that ksh93 could bring would make a
> > very interesting RFE.
>
> I don't have the time to do this _alone_ in a seperate RFE - the extra
> overhead eats-up too much time currently. I'll be more efficient (at
> least for me) to cleanup the script code _now_ (starting with fixing the
> warnings+errors listed by "shlint" and then do some profiling).
It's obvious from the three emails that you sent me that you really care
about this; I'm not throwing stones at you.
What I am saying is that this project has already been ARC'd in its
current form and having it grow to cause incompatibility issues with
other include scripts will force it to go back through that process and
that's unfair overhead just because we think ksh is shiny.
> > I don't really think it's this project's job.
>
> What about the startup time regression ? IMO six seconds are too much.
That's six seconds on an Ultra 2. How much is it on something people
will actually use?
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/security-discuss/attachments/20081106/8c7c028e/attachment.bin>
