Hi, On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 08:07:37AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:13 PM, <olafbuddenha...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > The real problem is organisational: changing an existing interface > > is a very fundamental decision, and the current maintainer situation > > regarding the Hurd means that there is nobody to approve such > > fundamental changes... It would be very hard ever to merge it into > > the mainline :-( > > Hm... Does this mean that we are somehow discouraged to do any changes > to things that already exist in the Hurd?.. Well, I don't really want to discourage it... Just pointing out that it's problematic :-( > I'm afraid I fail to see in which way Zheng's changes are less > fundamental than the changes we are inclined to do to an existing > interface :-) His work extends existing functionality, but doesn't change the interfaces. It this sense, it's a less fundamental modification... Also, you might have noticed that none of his work got merged to the mainline so far -- not even the relatively simple patches :-( > A fundamental (probably) question: when you say ``translator stacking > framework'', do you refer to the existing mechanism of stacking > translators or to some future possibility? (the one about fast > translator startup or something like this, probably?) There is no "framework" part nor even a special mechanism for stacking translators in the ordinary fashion, so obviously I'm not talking about that. I mean a framework for optimizing translator stacking, i.e. the "object mobility" stuff Fredrik is working on. > > (Actually, there are still two processes -- but the functionality of > > one of them is migrated over to the other, so one becomes an empty > > shell, and the other does all the work.) > > Hm... Sounds great :-) How do we achieve that? ;-) By the devices of a mighty magician called Dynamic Linking... Seriously, the details are still all very open. Moreover, they have been and are being discussed in other threads. No need to repeat it here. -antrik-
