[Devel] Re: [Users] Request for discussion: FIFO to MI migration

Bogdan-Andrei Iancu bogdan at voice-system.ro
Tue Oct 10 11:25:57 CEST 2006

Juha Heinanen wrote:

>Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:
> > 2) for how long should we keep in parallel the two FIFO / UNIXSOCK 
> > implementations before dropping the old ones? I am a fan of a fast 
> > transition I would drop the old impls as soon as the new one offer the 
> > same functioanlity - this will accelerate the testing and migration
> > process.
>since 1.1.2 will bring quite a lot of changes anyway, perhaps we could
>drop the old ones immediately.  we need to bite the bullet at some time
this is also my opinion - does anybody else have another one?

> > So the questions are - when to drop the old impls and how to deal with 
> > backward compatibilities (as MI will not be 100% compat with SEMS for 
> > example)
>since sems compatibility is very important and since we cannot change
>sems's socket interface, we have to provide backwards compatibility to
>it via tm module.  i can be limited to unix socket only.
AFAIK, the unixsock syntax is very similar to the FIFO one, so it might 
be affected by the transition to MI in the same way as FIFO and loose 
some backward compatibility.
As the number of affected function is really small, my suggestion is to 
have a small unixsock/fifo proxy to translate from old version to new 
one  (in case if we do not find a nicer way to ensure compat with serweb 
and sems).


More information about the Devel mailing list