libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues?

[Andrey Chernov]

On 15.11.2015 20:37, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 15 November 2015 at 09:10, Dan Partelly <dan_partelly at rdsor.ro> wrote:
>> Meaning, is that simple to push things in head , if somone does the work, even with with no proper review of the problem at hand , and the proposed solutions ?
> 
> Nope and yup. The juniper folk had a solution to a problem multiple
> people had requested work on, and their proposal was by far the
> furthest along code and use wise.
> 
> It's all fine and good making technical decisions based on drawings
> and handwaving and philosophizing, but at some point someone has to do
> the code. Juniper's libxo was the furthest along in implementation and
> production.

It seems it is the only and final argument for libXO existence. I
remember 2 or 3 discussions against libXO spontaneously happens in the
FreeBSD lists, all ended with that, approximately: "we already have the
code and you have just speculations". Alternative and more architecture
clean ideas, like making standalone template-oriented parser probably
based on liXO, are never seriously considered, because nobody will code
it, not for other reasons.

-- 
http://ache.vniz.net/