Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 09:51, Andrey Chernov <ache_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 15.11.2015 20:37, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> On 15 November 2015 at 09:10, Dan Partelly <dan_partelly_at_rdsor.ro> wrote:
>>> Meaning, is that simple to push things in head , if somone does the work, even with with no proper review of the problem at hand , and the proposed solutions ?
>> 
>> Nope and yup. The juniper folk had a solution to a problem multiple
>> people had requested work on, and their proposal was by far the
>> furthest along code and use wise.
>> 
>> It's all fine and good making technical decisions based on drawings
>> and handwaving and philosophizing, but at some point someone has to do
>> the code. Juniper's libxo was the furthest along in implementation and
>> production.
> 
> It seems it is the only and final argument for libXO existence. I
> remember 2 or 3 discussions against libXO spontaneously happens in the
> FreeBSD lists, all ended with that, approximately: "we already have the
> code and you have just speculations". Alternative and more architecture
> clean ideas, like making standalone template-oriented parser probably
> based on liXO, are never seriously considered, because nobody will code
> it, not for other reasons.

We lack a [dtd/json] spec for tools, so programming for xo'ification doesn't seems like the best idea in the world to me from a end-user sysadmin/developer perspective.

I could just as easily use standard tools like awk, grep, sed, and more advanced languages like perl or Python to parse output, and assuming output doesn't get a major rewrite, I'd just go with that method that's worked pretty well for me over the last 10 years of my career..

Cheers,
-NGie