[16997] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: : Why are we using libverto again
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathaniel McCallum)
Thu Jul 7 15:20:17 2011
From: Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@redhat.com>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:20:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <tslvcve2chy.fsf@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <1310066403.16598.31.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: "krbdev@mit.edu" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 14:04 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> However the complexity of the
> intermediary has far exceeded what I was expecting.
What complexity? Right now sloccount gives me:
* core library: 696
* glib: 180
* libev: 116
* libevent: 113
* tevent: 114
* unit tests: 307
I'd hardly call that complex. Most of my time has been spent on platform
testing, making sure the subtle behaviors are all the same and finding
bugs within the loop implementations themselves. Most of this work would
have to be done even if you just chose one loop and no abstraction
layer.
Nathaniel
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
