Hey,
Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I've attached a man page page follow-up patch - some typos, some minor
> wordsmithing - feel free to use/discard as you see fit.
Ah thank you, looks good to me.
> There is some deb packaging work needed here - all shared libraries need
> to be separate packages there, I'll help with that tomorrow. That makes
> me wonder though - is this likely to expand in scope down the track? - I
> can imagine lots of other www-related helper code needing a home - should
> we name it more generically? - libpcp_web? (or something else, betterer).
> Renaming it later will mean packaging pain, so ... maybe pre-empting that,
> if you agree this might be needed later?
Ah, good call on the debian packaging, will start looking into it.
Hm, I'm not sure on the libpcp_web name, it depends on how else you're
envisioning expanding the library. If it can be as simple as using
(for example), libpcp_http for fetching web metrics, and then using
libpcp_json to interpret the response, I'm leaning towards keeping this
library smaller and focused. Definitely open to changing the name if it
makes sense though! Just unsure of how else you're thinking about
growing it.
> Oh, lastly - for a new shared library I think some qa/src code that takes
> those interfaces through their paces would be good, instead of us solely
> relying on the docker tests. The library is cross-platform, so test code
> that runs on all platforms would be good. Simple stuff would suffice here
> I think (theres some test data in qa/json/ already) - and maybe a valgrind
> test too if you're feeling bold?
Ya that would make a lot of sense, should have included that in the
initial commit, will get started that immediately.
> ps: some of the build/configure/man-page stuff is still in that branch
> BTW.
Ah, serves me right for rebasing daily :) Will fix that as well before
posting the fixups above.
Cheers,
Lukas
|