lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc
    Date
    >>1)  IT SHOULD NOT BE PRETTY.  No tabs to line up columns. No "progress
    >>bars." No labels except as "proc comments" (see later). No in-line
    >>labelling.
    >
    >It should not be pretty TO HUMANS. Slight difference. It should be >pretty
    >to shellscripts and other applications though.

    If this is the case, why are we using ASCII for everything? If the only
    interface to /proc will be applications, then we could just as well let the
    application turn four bytes into an ASCII IPv4 adddress. We could easily
    have it set up to parse using the format [single byte type identifier (ie 4
    for string with the first byte of "data" being the string length, 1 for
    unsigned int, 2 for signed int, 19 for IPv4, 116 for progress bar,
    etc.)][data]. Let people standardize away. Am I missing the point?

    I think every aspect of an OS should be intuitive (so long as it is
    efficient), which IMO /proc isn't. If this means splitting it in two, as
    some have suggested, so be it. It certainly should have a design
    guideline/spec so we may at least be consistant. Just my 2 coppers.


    Will Knop
    w_knop@hotmail.com

    _________________________________________________________________
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.022 / U:150.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site