----- "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 09:57 +1000, nathans@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > ----- "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > ...
>
> Now I'm not saying __pmParseLocalPMDA() is not a candidate for
> libpcp,
> I'm just not sure ... although it seems to have a stronger case than
> lots of other routines that are included in the library ... 8^(>
>
Yeah. I think we should. The "make copies of the code, recompiled
for each binary" thing was more of a downside than one more libpcp
routine, IMO. pmdumptext and pmchart can use this treatment too,
and to get the "same" code over there will be really painful without
having it in libpcp.
> > - at this stage, we could probably split libpcp/src/connect.c into
> > a pmcd version and a local version, ala fetch.c & fetchlocal.c.
>
> This is more of a religious issue ... I personally don't think code
> quality and engineer productivity has much to do with source line
> count,
> but then again I'm just an old fart who hates gratuitious comments in
> the source.
It was more about having "like" stuff together, and that file is pretty
much two very different chunks of independent code. Was an easy split,
I think we should still do it.
> Do you want me to refine my changes or are you going to finish your
> patch? I think the end result will be much the same, so I'm easy ...
> just let me know.
I'd prefer if you could pick it up and run with it, then I can get back
to hacking pmchart on the train. :)
cheers.
--
Nathan
|