[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

back-monitor rationalization (Was: commit...)

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

ando@OpenLDAP.org writes:

init.c 1.111 -> 1.112
more (in)sanity stuff

I haven't looked closely, but I imagine cleaner fix would be to move
parts of monitor_back_db_destroy (bi->bi_db_destroy) to bi->bi_destroy.

Since only one is allowed, there's little use in separating be_X() from be_db_X(); anyway, feel free to indicate what should be separated.

Or maybe parts of monitor_back_initialize to monitor_back_db_init
(bi->bi_db_init) - is there any need to set up back-montor if it is not

Actually that's not entirely correct. First of all I'd like to have back monitor always on; furthermore, the capability to customize back-monitor via the internal API presumes it's always initialized even if it's not activated.

BTW, I expect the structs in monitor_back_initialize should be static
and maybe const.

Nope: in principle, one could even append subsystems dynamically (I'm not sure the code is already there, but we're doing something like that in customized modules we're developing for customers; it'll end up in the source soon). In any case, subsystems could be activated only if required; while in many cases the decision can be made at compile time (e.g. thread info only if compiled with threads; SASL info --- none at present, but there will be --- only if compiled with SASL), I expect in some cases it could be determined by configuration.


SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497