Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [OT] pkgcore bikeshed (was Portage team)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:38:06
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [OT] pkgcore bikeshed (was Portage team) by Tom Wijsman
1 On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:27:36 +0100
2 Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote:
3 > > Not an API. APIs are bad. What we should have is a good set of
4 > > lightweight Unix-friendly command line tools. See, for example, the
5 > > "Scripting Commands" section of "man cave".
6 >
7 > It still is an API that way, just expressed differently
9 The term "API" seems to mean "library or communication interface" these
10 days (see "Git API" and the like). So for clarity, it's probably better
11 to make the distinction.
13 > if you would only do this you're introducing forks where you might
14 > not need them. Providing shell commands is one possible binding to
15 > the API...
17 Forks are far less of a big deal than trying to share a process between
18 programming languages. This is a *huge* deal when trying to integrate
19 modern C++ with languages with primitive thread-hostile runtimes like
20 Python and Ruby.
22 Unless you're doing a heavy GUI (in which case portability probably
23 isn't going to cut it anyway, without a far larger API than it's worth
24 providing), most of the cost for most of the use cases for this is in
25 the PM reading in configs and the like. The way around that is to allow
26 communication via pipes, still in a Unix-friendly manner. This can be
27 implemented nearly transparently.
29 --
30 Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: [OT] pkgcore bikeshed (was Portage team) "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>