On 11/16/15 1:51 AM, Andrey Chernov 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. I believe that was my suggestion.. (thus automatically gaining negative votes from certain scandinavian countries). I still think it is better because it would give a framework for adding templates for third party applications for which libXO will NEVER be an option. LibXO could be the backend for outputing the data. >Received on Tue Nov 17 2015 - 08:09:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:01 UTC