On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that designing the api in steps like this will make it harder > to get a consistent design. The journal api is rather small, so I don't > think it is hard to cover most of it in the initial design. In my > experience, getting sd_journal_print, sd_journal_send, sd_journal_sendv > wrappers consistent requires some care.
I agree, I would rather do this all at once. > About the proposed go api: > > I think the reader and writer apis should be totally separate. > Different files/modules/whatever. They don't share implementation, > and usually are not used together. Yes, I agree. Actually, is there a reason to bind to the C sd_journal_print if we already have a pure Go version of sd_journal_send? https://github.com/coreos/go-systemd/blob/master/journal/send.go > In some places in the go code '%s' is used with numerical 'err'. > Does this work at all? Yes it works, Go's print is typesafe but it will look strange: %!s(int=42). We should probably turn them into syscall.Errno() type. > It's hard to say with the scant backtrace. But I don't recall > ever seeing any crashes related to sd_journal_wait. Dan, how do you want me to help out with this? I am happy to dig in if you want to share a branch or something. Or you can send a PR and we can start from there. Brandon [1] http://play.golang.org/p/zTOuMj-sg7 [2] http://play.golang.org/p/NDnJF8Zocf _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
