From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nils.carlson@ericsson.com (Nils Carlson)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:09:44 +0200
Subject: [ltt-dev] UST communication library
In-Reply-To: <4DF841C5.6070508@polymtl.ca>
References: <4DF7D1F6.5000402@polymtl.ca> <4DF841C5.6070508@polymtl.ca>
Message-ID: <4DF868C8.6090108@ericsson.com>

Hi,

On 06/15/2011 07:23 AM, Alexandre Montplaisir wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
> Sorry if I missed it, but what is the ultimate goal with lttng-tools? Is
> it to
>
> A) Become the unified trace controller for LTTng (kernel) and UST
> (userspace) tracers.
> or
> B) Become a generic trace controller which people could "plug" their
> tracers into, and which would come with initial support for LTTng and UST.
>
> If it's A) and only A), I'd say yank the separate "libust" and merge it
> into lttng-tools' tree. This is what happened with "lttctl", which is
> now statically built in lttng-tools, right?
>
> However modularity is never bad, perhaps going with an architecture like
> B) is better long-term.
<snip>
> I'm not sure I get this one. Is there a point for an application to use
> libustcomm standalone, without the rest of libust? If not then they
> should be kept together, no?
>
>
> And I'd add 6), as mentioned before:
>
> 6) Drop the separate ust/libust package and merge it with lttng-tools.
>
I agree with this. If we want UST to be hardwired into LTTng we should 
just merge UST into the LTTng repo completely.

I personally am not for this, I think it's a case of short-term 
expediency winning over technical merit. I think a modular architecture 
would be far nicer.

/Nils

> In my humble semi-outsider opinion, if you want goal A) I'd say go with
> 6), if you want goal B) go with 1b)
>
>
> Cheers,
>