Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>]

On November 4, 2001 08:46 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > >
> > > The computer can parse anything.
> >
> > OK, then lets keep the 'current' variable in ASCII.
> 
> Yeah, the old "argument by absurdity".
> 
> Did you ever take logics class? It isn't a valid argument at all.
> 
> My argument is: humans want the data they want in a readable format. What
> the _hell_ does that have to do with the "current" variable?




> > > Handling spaces and newlines is easy enough - see the patches from Al
> > > Viro, for example.
> >
> > Why are we doing this parsing in the kernel when it can be done in user
> > space?
> 
> We're not parsing anything.
> 
> We're marshalling the data into a format that is independent of whatever
> internal representation the kernel happens to have for it that particular
> day.
> 
> A representation that is valid across architectures, and a representation
> that is unambiguous. A representation that various scripts can trivially
> use, and a representation that is not bound by fixed-sized fields or other
> idiocy.
> 
> In short, text strings.
> 
> They have advantages even for a computer. Fixed-size binary interfaces are
> BAD for information interchange. They are bad as a word document file
> format, they are bad for email, and they are bad for /proc. Get it?
> 
> Would you prefer doc-files to be standard text, marshalled into some
> logical form? Or do you prefer binary blobs of data that is limited by the
> binary format?
> 
> 		Linus
> 
>