[ofa-general] Re: [PATCH RFC] opensm/event_plugin: plugin API version 2

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 07:03 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> On 06:37 Wed 02 Jul     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > 
> > Because exposing all the data structures, etc. is way more granular (all
> > the socalled opaque objects are no longer opaque) than a library API.
> > It's a totally different magnitude IMO.
> 
> This is what I said.

Perhaps but I sense that we're on opposite ends of the spectrum if we're
saying the same thing.

>  Having "structured" API could lead to an issues
> similar to what we saw with libosmcomp.

Sure if the API is not supported as stable or only private but there is
still a large matter of degree here whereas a structured API is usually
more limited than all internals as is being done here.

> > > > This is related to what I wrote below about the OpenFabrics licensing
> > > > requirements. The idea is if GPL licensing were to be allowed (perhaps
> > > > only in some limited context), then there could be two different
> > > > packages: dual and GPL. In that way plugins would be more assured of
> > > > being compatible with each other and OpenSM.
> > > 
> > > I would prefer to separate packages by its functionality and not due to
> > > licensing issues. 
> > 
> > Right, licensed based packages do put all related functionality in a
> > similar bucket (management) but is that the basis to make such a
> > decision ?
> 
> Which decisions? I'm not following.

The decision to expose all internals in this manner as well as the
decision not to see what license modifications might be possible.

-- Hal

> Sasha
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
> 
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general