FreeLists / openbeosstorage / [openbeosstorage] Re: Getting rid of kernel_interface.POSIX.cpp

["Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tyler Dauwalder <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Yes, I am all for removing the separated kernel_interface, too.
> > > However, how should the transition be done?
> > > Right now, there are already some places where the Storage Kit 
> > > directly
> > > calls R5's syscalls - of course, those would have to be changed 
> > > first,
> > > as they don't build under Haiku, and I don't intend to add these
> > > syscalls :)
> > > My suggestions are these, either:
> > > a) ditch R5 compatibility; we have our tests written, there is no 
> > > need
> > > to perform the tests for our kit under R5 when we can do the same 
> > > under
> > > Haiku.
> > > b) conditionally compilable for R5; i.e. if some macro like
> > > COMPILE_FOR_R5 is defined, _kstart_watching_ is used instead of
> > > _kern_start_watching.
> > I would in principle vote for a), but things are unfortunately a 
> > bit more
> > complicated. The unit test framework uses quite a bit of BeOS API 
> > itself
> > (and the STL!), so it might be not so easy to get the tests run 
> > under Haiku
> > in the first place.
> We're not really in any terrible hurry to get the tests working again 
> anyway. It would be nice to have them, but I don't think it's 
> critical for 
> the time being. We'll have enough support for them to build and run 
> under 
> Haiku eventually, and we can deal with any issues they uncover at 
> that time. 
> So I'd say a) is fine with me too.

I think so, too. As a first step, I will let LibBeAdapter.cpp export 
the Haiku Node Monitor syscalls, and call the R5 ones from there - that 
way, we can still build the Storage Kit for R5 and Haiku for now.
Later, when we extend the kernel API and remove 
kernel_interface.POSIX.cpp, we can still break compatibility to R5.

> > > That reminds me that I never got to ask, why you moved the
> > > {CreateAppMetaMime,MimeUpdate,UpdateMimeInfo}Thread stuff from 
> > > the
> > > registrar into libbe. They aren't used in Storage Kit, are they?
> > Yeah, Tyler, why did you do that? ;-))
> You ought to have asked that when I did it, because I have absolutely 
> no 
> recollection of the reasoning behind that anymore. :-) If I ever 
> figure it 
> out, I'll let you know. :-)

Okay, good luck with that :-)

Bye,
   Axel.