On 11/14/2011 09:37 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 12:42 +0100, David Henningsson wrote: >> On 11/10/2011 09:34 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: >>> I got a bit confused about the path naming, or more specifically about >>> the uniqueness of the path names. I didn't have time to double check, >>> but it seemed like in the old system there was no reason to have the >>> path_set_make_paths_unique() function at all, because it looked like the >>> path names would be unique anyway (within one path set). I'm pretty sure >>> that I've missed something... >> >> Two different path files can have the same name, as "name" refers to the >> "Name" key in the "General" section, not the file name. Does that clear >> things up? > > Yes, thank you. Having the "name" option in General seems pointless to > me... Complexity without gain. If the "name" option wouldn't exist, > there would be 1:1 mapping between the path names appearing in PA logs > and the configuration file names, which would be quite nice. Also, there > wouldn't be need to care about making the path names unique after > probing (port descriptions would probably still have to be checked that > they are unique). For those reasons I'd like to remove the "name" > option. Do you have anything against that? Hmm, I don't really see the point in having this "name" key either. I wonder if I'm missing something. >>> The path set should be created already at configuration parsing time. >>> There shouldn't be need to create anything at probe time - I think the >>> purpose of probing is just to remove those paths that are not available. >> >> It is a slight optimisation to create it here, this way we only create >> path sets for profiles that are supported. > > Ok. I'd still like to keep the clear phases of configuration parsing > (structure creation) and probing (removing unavailable stuff). So what > do you think? Your comment didn't really tell me whether you agree or > not. Well, for me I haven't really seen it as if it were two specific phases like that. So I haven't tried not to mix them. I'd personally prefer whatever is fastest (we all strive to get a faster boot!). However I haven't made any specific charts, so I can't tell for sure that it is significant. What would the advantage of having "clear phases" be (except possibly a fuzzy feeling)? -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. http://launchpad.net/~diwic
