Re: [dev-serveez] Avoiding code fork/duplication of serveez cfg code

[stefan]

On 28 Nov 2002, Andreas Rottmann wrote:

> However, I yesterday hacked up Serveez to make the configuration
> mechansim more flexible. A short description follows, for more
> information, see the patch and especially the changes to the
> ChangeLogs.

Hello!

I had a short glimpse at the patch.  Basically it looks good.  Currently I
am fixing the bugs you quenched in (found some memory leaks), brushing it
up and adding proper documentation.

This means your patch will be incorporated soon (with some modifications
of course).  Now my comments:

> * svz_server_config_t is now named svz_config_accessor_t, however
>   svz_server_config_t is typedef'd to svz_config_accessor_t.

Do you think it makes sense to put these accessors into the configurable
type struct?  Thus we would save some arguments to each function.

> * svz_servertype_t has now a member `config_prototype' of type
>   svz_config_prototype_t instead of `items', `prototype_start and
>   `prototype_end'.

This is ok.  Unfortunately it changes the ABI (so I also need to fix the
serveezopt package).

> So what does this gain us? A short use case should illustrate the
> usefulness of the changes:
>
> [...]

Didn't understand it yet...

With the patch we do not gain too much for serveez right now since the
functionality keeps the same.  I guess with the new mechanism we could
also configure port configuration (and thereby remove possible duplicate
code)?  Is this true?

Can you please give a short example how you want to implement your
'services' and what will be the actual gain from the new functionality?

* ... hacking deep into Serveez ... *

Thanks in advance,
        address@hidden