Re: [PATCHv2] cld: use XDR for all messages

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

On 02/09/2010 07:21 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:21:02 -0500
> Jeff Garzik<jeff@garzik.org>  wrote:
>
>> So, the programs themselves have it right -- debug/verbose is an integer
>> not a bool.  The internal libraries get that wrong sometimes, though.
>>
>> Having separate knobs for 'debug' and 'verbose' will be more confusing
>> than a single control, IMO.
>
> I dunno, I think bigger packages tend to drift towards bitmasks.
> But I don't have a strong opinion. I just wanted to restore the
> per-packet output that you wanted. If you think that an integer is
> better, that's fine. The newer code should is more regular and easier
> to mold in any desired way.

Integer or bitmask, either one is fine with me.  Anything but two 
separate variables, one for 'debug' and one for 'verbose'.  Programmers 
tend to like bitmasks, and users tend to -not- like them if forced to 
perform binary math.


> Actually, I think the whole idea of debug levels is flawed.
> We should work on adding a CLD protocol dissector to Wireshark
> instead, now that with Colin's help we've settled to a protocol.

Long term, I agree.  Creating a wireshark patch is definitely a to-do item.

For now, while a wireshark patch would be welcome, we are still changing 
the network protocol.  In particular, replication will _definitely_ 
change the protocol.  I was waiting on the XDR patch before making any 
more protocol changes.

That means we would either need to have locally patches wireshark 
packages, or maintain an out-of-tree wireshark patch in rawhide for a 
while, until the protocol settles down.

	Jeff