On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 01:02:35PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 12:25:17PM -0500, Shawn Webb wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:47:25AM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:24:58AM -0500, Shawn Webb wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 04:44:49PM -0800, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote:
> > > > > Dominique Martinet writes:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > But, really, I just don't see how this can practically be said to be parsable...
> > > > > 
> > > > > In its current form it never will be.  The solution is to place
> > > > > this variable-length field last.  Then you can "cut -d ' ' -f 51-"
> > > > > to get the command+args part (assuming I counted all those fields
> > > > > correctly ...)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Of course, this breaks backwards compatability.
> > > > 
> > > > It would also break forwards compatibility in the case new fields
> > > > needed to be added.
> > > > 
> > > > The only solution would be a libxo-style feature wherein a
> > > > machine-parseable format is exposed by virtue of a file extension.
> > > > 
> > > > Examples:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. /proc/pid/stats.json
> > > > 2. /proc/pid/stats.xml
> > > > 3. /proc/pid/stats.yaml_shouldnt_be_a_thing
> > > 
> > > A binary format would be even better.  No risk of ambiguity.
> > 
> > I think the argument I'm trying to make is to be flexible in
> > implementation, allowing for future needs and wants--that is "future
> > proofing".
> 
> Linux should not have an XML, JSON, or YAML serializer.  Linux already
> does way too much; let’s not add one more thing to the list.

Handling a new binary format is not 'one more thing' added?

> -- 
> Sincerely,
> Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
> Invisible Things Lab