From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 01:49:51 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ragnar_Kj=F8rstad?= Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Writing forward compatible applications using /proc Message-ID: <20010814014951.H26064@vestdata.no> References: <20010811235718.A20414@linux.com> <20010812200701.A657@btconnect.com> <20010812221650.A6589@vestdata.no> <20010813100858.C362@btconnect.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010813100858.C362@btconnect.com>; from thornber@btconnect.com on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:08:58AM +0100 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 Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:08:58AM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote: > > 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. I'm not complaining if it's changing, but if it's going away, that's bad :( > 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. yach! An uncomplete list of uglyness: * Errorhandling * fork/exec * having to format input arguments as strings (and quote them) * having to parse output data from strings -- Ragnar Kjorstad Big Storage