| |||||||||||||
Choosing between portability and innovationChoosing between portability and innovationPosted Mar 2, 2011 23:44 UTC (Wed) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)Parent article: Choosing between portability and innovation
As regards udev in DragonFlyBSD, it is not actually a port of any code. Alex tried providing a Linux-udev-compatible API in the library (libdevattr) he created, but the implementation is completely different to Linux's udev. Unfortunately, a quick load of http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/libu... reveals that the udev api is intimately familiar with sysfs, so part of the API is pointless unless one reimplements sysfs. That said, it is encouraging that the portable part of the udev API was so close to our requirements that we decided to just adopt it where possible.
(Log in to post comments)
Choosing between portability and innovation Posted Mar 3, 2011 9:39 UTC (Thu) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964) [Link]
Sounds like a bad API leaking internals
There seems to be a fashion against good abstractions and layering. The FOSS ecosystem has provided choice, because of modular components, allowing re-implementatin and improved features without breaking the application base.
|
|||||||||||||