On 16 January 2015 at 21:11, Steven Stewart-Gallus < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hello. > > I'm just some random guy but anyways. > Thanks for commenting! > As a user and administrator, I dislike excess dependencies on my > system such as Perl but can always just remove the xdg-utils package > if I really want to, so having xdg-utils depend on Perl isn't that bad > a thing. > How many systems don't have Perl? My guess is that unless they're appliances or virtual machines tailored for a particular application, not many, but maybe I'm wrong? About the pluggable backends thing. I think that would lead to a much > cleaner design and also potentially a much lighter system (one could > not have installed an xdg-utils-gnome package, an xdg-utils-kde > package, etc..). However, I also somewhat think that this sort of > genericity maybe should be done via interfaces like DBus because the > traditional Unix approach of a program spawning off a helper program > is really clunky. Relying on DBus quickly gets you into dependency hell. Further… > First off, helper programs aren't very good at > error handling. They can return an error code, like any program. Or as you say, they can write to stderr (or stdout). Either way, the caller can examine the result and take appropriate action; what's the problem? Secondly, helper programs are kind of wasteful in > that they spawn off a whole process. This simply isn't a problem: the current shell scripts spawn so many processes that a few more won't make a difference. Rewriting in Perl would vastly reduce the number of forks, but I really don't think it's a priority: the current implementations have issues, but I've never seen anyone complain about their performance. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
