[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Nbd] glib use in nbd-server



On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 02:08:37PM -0700, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I was wondering if there are any nbd server implementations that don't
> make use of glib?

Any nbd-server before 2.8 (of which I will only support the 2.7 series
at this point).

> That's a pretty heavy library to use for such a simple protocol.

wouter@...77...:~$ ls -lh /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0.800.4
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 634K 2005-11-20 11:17 /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0.800.4

I don't think that's too much. Especially not since GLib doesn't have
any (run-time) dependencies by itself.

The reason for starting to use GLib is that it is a very extensive
support library with a lot of easy to use and useful general-purpose C
routines, such as hashes, linked lists, binary trees, etcetera. I'm
currently only using the hashes, but plan in the future to use more of
its features, such as its file parsing system, perhaps the mainloop, and
other things. I'm currently using getopt() for command line parsing, but
that might be switched over to glib too some time (not sure about that
one yet, though).

The alternative would've been that I would use a different tool or
library for every part of that, which would insanely increase the
dependency tree by the time we get to nbd-server 3.0 (see the roadmap on
http://nbd.sf.net/roadmap.html). Alternatively, if you can point me
towards a small library with most of the features in glib (I don't need
gobject and its friends, but things like hashes, trees, command
line/file parsers, stacks, and so on--those are important).

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/



Reply to: