On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:42:02AM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 01:47:13AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 08:39:16PM +0200, Francis GUDIN wrote:
>Hello,
>
>RStyx might help:
>http://rubyforge.org/projects/rstyx/
I finally looked into this and found it completely unacceptable. Just the
client, with limited functionality, in pure ruby, is 1,295 lines of ugly
code. The fully functional lib9pclient from plan9port, in C, is 1,059
lines of sane code and is probably a hell of a lot faster. To be fair,
lib9pclient depends on plan9 system headers I'm not counting and some lib9
functionality, but that's besides the point.
libixp is much smaller than the complete lib9p* dependencies of
Plan9 (which are about 50kSLOC including lib9, if not more). And
libixp/client.c keeps the connection between dial and hangup, I
don't think the client part is a bad API of libixp (however the
server side needs polishing, I always agreed to this).
A sloccount of libixp tells me it consists of 1244 lines, for
everything (socket handling, server/client side, protocol layer,
- only dependency are 173 lines of libcext).
This is 1.5kSLOC vs. 60kSLOC...
Yes, I considered mentioning this after I posted. Like I said, though, I
already gave up writing libixp bindings to ruby. The interface for ixp_client
is sane, I'll admit, but I'd rather rewrite it in ruby whan write bindings. It
would actually be easier. I think, though, that I'd rather have lib9pclient
bindings, since it fully supports authentication. I think that it's somewhat
slower, though, than libixp. I haven't actually benchmarked the libs, just the
executables (wmiir and 9p), and wmiir is ~3x the speed.
--
Kris Maglione
The "think positive" leader tends to listen to his
subordinate's premonitions only during the postmortems.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
