Re: Opencomm: proplib-based syscall

[der Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

>>> struct { a; b; }
>>> And the relevant xml is <a></a><b></b>.
> This is no different than the current common scheme of including a
> version number in the mount argument structure.  Except that it's
> *worse* since you need to do checking in every slot instead of just
> once during argument processing.  Now you will probably suggest
> adding a version number to the prop dictionary?

No, actually, I won't.  Instead, I'll point out that it's better in
many cases (I think mount(2) is an exmaple) because it directly
supports optional features.  It's the difference between "ls -li foo"
and "ls no no no yes no no no no yes no no foo", where the first 11
arguments specify whether 11 different options are on or off.  Some
interfaces work better with one style, some with the other, and the
proplib style of interface is better suited to the ls-style needs,
where there are a lot of options but usually no more than a few take on
non-default values.

>> Not that I like proplib (and XML more generally); I don't.  But this
>> actually is one case where it gets things righter than the old way.
> I, on the other hand, do like XML and proplib, but haphazardly adding
> undefined kernel interfaces and making handwavy claims that all is
> now jolly is not the way to use them.

Agreed.  I'm talking about interfaces in general, not about any
particular implementation.  It's certainly possible to implement a
wonderful style of interface catastrophically badly.

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML                mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B