On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 22:00 +0200, Georg Chini wrote: > On 03.10.2017 14:58, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > > > > > Also, it's questionable why the list-handlers command is implemented > > > > with the messaging API in the first place. It's core functionality, so > > > > why is it not implemented using the normal introspection API? > > > > > > Two reasons: > > > > > > a) It's much simpler than using the introspection API > > > > Ok, but didn't we agree earlier that the messaging API is only meant > > for modules, and new core features shall be added using the existing > > API conventions? The rationale, if you've forgotten it, was that it's > > annoying for application developers if the core API uses inconsistent > > conventions and introspection functionality needs to be searched from > > two different places. > > > > I might accept it if you put the client-facing bits in the > > introspection API, but use the messaging system behind the scenes. If > > you want pursue that route, I'd like get an ok from Arun as well. This > > is not only about the list-handlers message, it's about all future core > > features. > > > > Another possibility is to deprecate the whole introspection API and > > reimplement it using the messaging API, but you probably don't want to > > take such a big project. > > > > > b) We should at least have one example in the code > > > which shows how a message handler is implemented. > > > > It's certainly good to have an example now so that we can discuss how > > the message parameter serialization is supposed to work, but I don't > > think we need to apply that example to master. I hope we'll have some > > other example by the time 12.0 is released (IIRC, you plan to add a > > message handler to module-loopback), but it's not a big deal if there > > are no examples. > > > > Finally I found some time to work again on the message patches. > > There is a third reason why I think getting the message handlers > should be implemented using the message API: > The message delivers information about the message API itself > and the information should be accessible via that API. > > So is it OK if I keep the message handler implementation (provided > that the handler returns a more "machine readable" format)? Or will > you reject it? I think it's ok to keep it. I have a related request: could you implement "pactl list message- handlers"? The point of that would be to have nicer formatting than the raw message reply. -- Tanu https://www.patreon.com/tanuk
