[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [lvm-devel] [PATCH] Renamed create_toolcontext function to _create_context and added sys_dir as argument, new functions create_librarycontext and create_toolcontext.



On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 01:04 +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> > +/* Library Entry point */
> > +struct cmd_context *create_librarycontext(const char *sys_dir)
> > +{
> > +	return _create_context(NULL, 0, 1, sys_dir);
> > +}
> 
> > +/* Tool Entry point */
> > +struct cmd_context *create_toolcontext(struct arg *the_args, unsigned is_static,
> > +				       unsigned is_long_lived)
> > +{
> > +	return _create_context(the_args, is_static, is_long_lived, NULL);
> > +}
> 
> Please don't separate these.  All tools will use the same library interface -
> there is to be nothing privileged about the existing tools in the tools dir or
> anaconda - they will both share the same interface.  So work out where those
> parameters should live.
> 

If we don't separate tool from library init, then we make generic
callers of the library incur the penalty for the tools (e.g. explicitly
setting args = NULL, etc).  Or is there an alternative?

Going with the object theme, and along the lines of what Thomas (and
maybe others) have suggested for pvcreate, perhaps a 'struct
lvm_lib_obj' that gets created with default values (such as args ==
NULL) and you have to explicitly set what you want before passing in the
lib_config object to create_toolcontext?  Passing NULL there of course
gives you default values as well.  Would that be a more acceptable
direction?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]