On 09/30/2015 07:42 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (29/09/15 17:45), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:38:58AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:50:06AM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/29/2015 10:44 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>> On (29/09/15 10:42), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/29/2015 10:35 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>> On (29/09/15 10:16), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/29/2015 10:08 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>>>> On (29/09/15 08:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 09/29/2015 08:31 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On (27/09/15 12:49), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, please see trivial patch attached.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >From b9f938087973444f0ec26fc24ad68dca7ac63034
Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Pavel Reichl
<reichl.pavel(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:34:20 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] confdb: Remove unused
function confdb_get_long
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> src/confdb/confdb.c | 51
---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 51 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/src/confdb/confdb.c
b/src/confdb/confdb.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index
c097aad7745eda4fff051c7da027776f95db0f03..eebd478f74041d2050df9edc283df43a65462340 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/src/confdb/confdb.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/src/confdb/confdb.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -475,57 +475,6 @@ failed:
>>>>>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -long confdb_get_long(struct confdb_ctx
*cdb,
>>>>>>>>>>> - const char *section,
const char *attribute,
>>>>>>>>>>> - long defval, long
*result)
>>>>>>>>>>> -{
>>>>>>>>>> Would it be better to consider this function as
confdb API
>>>>>>>>>> and add to src/confdb/confdb.h?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It could be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It might be useful in the future.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thought that out policy towards unused functions
were to remove them.
>>>>>>>> Could you point me to the description of such policy?
>>>>>>>> I'm not aware of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it's written anywhere
>>>>>> Good to know. I thought I missed something
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just saw we did it repeatedly before and thought it's
our general practice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> One more time:
>>>>>> If we consider confdb as library than we should never remove
functions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Removing functions from other parts of code is something
>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We did so in commit
2b94ab415b30861f42b68725d9231905baf8c3bd
>>>>>>>> I didn't notice that patch. I'm sorry I do not
have a time
>>>>>>>> to follow each patchset.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can always resurrect removed code if needed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we consider confdb as library than
>>>>>>>> we should never remove functions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we should decide which parts of SSSD are public
libraries and which are not, then we could avoid this kind of discussions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wrote "consider confdb as library" and not as a
public library with
>>>>>> stable API. And libraries many times contains function which are
not used.
>>>>>> So we should not remove them. Even though it would be still in
git history.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? If we don't use them and nobody else does why do we have to
keep them?
>>>>>
>>>> libraries many times contains function which are not used
>>>
>>> Well, but if they are not public we can change that, right? We can change
them as we need and removing unused code is one of those things. I don't see the
difference between private library and 'other parts of code'.
>>
>> I think we should be explicit here. If we want to consider confdb as a
>> library we should make it a public library with a stable API with all
>> the consequences. In general I think this is not a bad idea e.g. with
>> respect to all the config related tickets we have planned for 1.14. But
>> we should define the initial version of a stable API, based on the
>> result and requirements from the 1.14 tickets.
>
> I'm more with Simo here that we shouldn't consider confdb and sysdb as
> stable ABIs, at least not yet. I think we need the flexibility of a private,
> unstable library.
>
> At the same time, I think we should try harder to avoid polluting the
> sysdb/confdb APIs with new calls and in general strive to make even the
> internal APIs easily usable. Here I agree with Lukas that the
> current interface is not very nice -- and the sysdb interface would be
> something that any new external contributor would be confronted with.
>
> Maybe when we review (hint, nudge, nudge) Michal's sysdb patches, we can
> take a look at the API and massage it a bit, move related functions
> together in the header files and merge or remove extra functions? (Yes,
> we can also file a ticket, but I don't think it would land in a
> milestone where we would touch it soon...)
>
>>
>> Having private/internal libraries with a more relaxed policy might turn
>> out to be problematic as e.g. can be seen by some internal samba
>> libraries which are used by us, OpenChange and maybe other projects
>> where upstream changes might force changes in the other projects as
>> well. Ok, the argument here is that they shouldn't have been used in the
>> first place, but what's the point in re-implementing existing
>> functionality.
>>
>> Currently I wouldn't see libsss_util where confdb.c is included as a
>> library at all, but just as a mean to make the build process easier and
>> faster.
>>
>> Coming to the original topic of the discussion, I would agree to remove
>> confdb_get_long() because it is nowhere used (and it looks like it
>> never was) and it does not even have a test.
>
> Is that an ack? :-)
No,
I think this was rather question for Sumit AFAIK he was the author of quoted text.
I still do not think that removing function and adding it back after
few months
The problem is - why do you think we will need the function in future? Using this logic we
could never remove any function from private libs.
is a good idea. Better would be to include to confdb.h and write
tests.
But it seems that I'm a single person in opposition.
So someone else need to ACK it.
LS
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel