design choices for a loadable module interface

Will Fiveash will.fiveash at
Tue Jun 29 20:06:44 EDT 2010

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 05:56:47PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 03:19:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > 
> > Could you be more specific about exactly what functionality you see the
> > vtable approach as duplicating?  I assume you mean something more than
> > just writing the struct definition of the vtable, since that's trivial.
> That.  V-tables need to be written.  And they make it harder to read the
> source, particularly since you're almost guaranteed to have different
> function names in every plugin, so now you have to search for
> assignments in cscope.  And they're ugly (yes, an aesthetic argument).

Yes, I've found searching for plugin method definitions to be a total
pain when vtables are used and each plugin can arbitrarily name the
method/function assigned to the vtable.  It would be much easier to
locate the various method definitions if the method/function names were
the same across all plugins supporting that method and that was enforced
by the plugin SPI framework.

Will Fiveash
Note my new work e-mail address: will.fiveash at
Sent using mutt, a sweet text based e-mail app:

More information about the krbdev mailing list