Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:52:00 +0100 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model |
| |
retu wrote: > What's the solution out of this - a clean, open object > model designed by the core folks, extensible and free > of licensing issues - and that in the next months.
You still haven't said a single word about why this is good. You haven't explained a _single_ advantage.
If you want anyone to take you seriously, you have to do this. Give real, convincing examples of what could be done, and why it's much better, to justify the work of creating the model.
Perhaps you think your idea is self-evidently great, so you don't need to explain why it is? Well, it isn't. I've seen startups fail due to not grasping this basic point.
Almost everyone here does not think this is a good idea. But we're all old and prejudiced around here. Perhaps we are mistaken, but if so it's up to you to explain _why_. Just saying "we need an object model" will not convince anyone.
If you look into the kernel right now, you see that it's one of the most object oriented C programs you will find. There's even a type called "kobject". Another well known polymorphic object is called "fd". "pid_t" really is an object. Filesystems, buses, devices, network cards, protocols, timers and many other things have hierarchies of object types inside the kernel.
It seems to me we _already_ have an object model in the kernel, and it's a pretty good one because people figure out how to use it very easily. So what is wrong with the object model we already have? Convince us, because what we have seems to be working quite well.
-- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |