From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:08:58 +0100 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Writing forward compatible applications using /proc Message-ID: <20010813100858.C362@btconnect.com> References: <20010811235718.A20414@linux.com> <20010812200701.A657@btconnect.com> <20010812221650.A6589@vestdata.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010812221650.A6589@vestdata.no>; from lvm@ragnark.vestdata.no on Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 10:16:50PM +0200 From: Joe Thornber Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 10:16:50PM +0200, Ragnar Kj?rstad wrote: > On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:07:02PM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote: > > I would much rather see people wrapping the tools than using liblvm, in fact > > liblvm will probably disappear in the future. > > Why will liblvm disappear? To me using a library interface seems much > nicer than wrapping applications. Because it's means there's yet another interface (along with the command line tools, and ioctl's) to constrain any implementation changes. Command line tool interface will not change. liblvm (if it still existed as a shared library) will change drastically between 1.0 and 2.0 - not least because it in turn reflects the driver ioctl interface. The experimental branch has a single lvm tool, with liblvm statically linked into it. There's no need for the outside world to know about liblvm. It may be a good idea for Sistina to produce a tiny 'wrap the tools' library for use by gui implementors. - Joe