Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/5] golang/xenlight: Add tests host related functionality functions

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] golang/xenlight: Add tests host 
related functionality functions"):
> Right.  The purpose of hand-crafting the code was to get a feel for what
> a good Go-like output would look like before investing in the IDL.

That makes sense.

>  It sounds like you're suggesting that having IDL support would be a
> prerequisite to getting anything checked in?

I think it's a prerequisite for it to be hooked into the build by
default, unless someone can convince me that foreseeable changes to
the libxl idl will not cause the golang build to break.

> I'd definitely say havind IDL support would be a prerequisite for
> declaring the bindings "supported".  I don't think the structures for
> these functions change so often that it would be a hardship for Ronald
> or I to change them whenever they broke; and so I would argue it
> shouldn't be a blocker for getting things into the tree if the code
> looks good.

I don't think it's sensible to ask other contributors who change the
IDL to have to liase with golang experts in order to not break the
build.  The whole point of the idl system is precisely to make this
kind of thing automatic.

OTOH I don't mind it being in-tree if it's not built by default.  Of
course then it will probably rot, so that's not a very stable
situation, but if having it in-tree makes the development easier then
that's fine by me.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel