Understood and renamed to "wireguardctrl" to avoid confusion.
> But more importantly, you shouldn't expose either the netlink or the
xplatform API distinction to users ever. They should be given one
interface, not three, and that one interface should be able to select
the right thing in 100% of cases.
I can't say I agree with this under all circumstances.
While I will encourage the use of the unified interface, I read that
there could be future work to allow the netlink interface to support
something like multicast group notifications. Would you plan on
implementing the same functionality for the userspace interface?
I think there are potential use cases for selecting one or the other,
but if this ends up being untrue, I can always push these packages
behind a Go "internal/" directory at a later time to prevent outside
imports.
- Matt
On 07/23/2018 11:12 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
Hi Matt,
This is super interesting and I actually did not discover it until after
I pushed the first few commits to my package. I could see it making
sense to refactor my current package layout to something like three
packages:
- wireguardnl: netlink-based communication
- wireguardcfg: text-based userspace configuration protocol communication
- wireguard: wrapper for both that detects the module in use and
seamlessly presents a unified interface
No, that's really not a good approach at all. First of all, do not
take the raw name "wireguard". That's going to cause a lot of
confusion. It's really not appropriate.
But more importantly, you shouldn't expose either the netlink or the
xplatform API distinction to users ever. They should be given one
interface, not three, and that one interface should be able to select
the right thing in 100% of cases.
Jason
_______________________________________________
WireGuard mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/wireguard
