[15992] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Plugin project proposal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simo Sorce)
Thu Jul 15 16:32:27 2010
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:32:22 -0400
From: Simo Sorce <ssorce@redhat.com>
To: krbdev@mit.edu
Message-ID: <20100715163222.01f36f0c@willson.li.ssimo.org>
In-Reply-To: <87eif4sdut.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:13:14 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
> I'm not sure we know which is likely to be the most common
> operation. My guess is actually that we'll have very static
> interfaces that will accumulate desired changes and then periodically
> undergo complete revision, which is why I like the vtable approach
> because it's probably the cleanest for handling that sort of
> situation.
Yes, I like the vtable approach because it tells the plugin writer with
a single look what is the set of functions relevant for you.
And if you care for supporting multiple versions it also gives you a
clear view of what is needed for each version.
This is lost when all you do is adding symbols, the plugin writer has
to check every function and/or the SCM history to find out if some
interfaces are still relevant or can be ignored because they are
deprecated etc ...
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
