Re: Sdbusplus-based Shared Library

[Patrick Venture <venture@google.com>]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Brad Bishop
<bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 27, 2018, at 11:43 AM, Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Brad,
>>
>> If you create a repository - phosphor-sdbus-utils or
>> phosphor-sdbusplus-utils or something like that, I'll put together a
>> starter pack on this and submit for review.
>
> May I suggest
>
> https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-monitor/tree/master/src/sdevent
>
> as a possibility for drawing ideas?  :-)
>
>>
>> Patrick
>
> Thanks Patrick! will do but I’d like to get a bit more clarity/discussion
> on what the content of this new repo will be.
>
> So today we have sdbusplus built around the sd-bus folder in libsystemd.
>
> Do we envision something like separate repos for:
>
> sdeventplus - wrappers for the sd-event folder in libsystemd
> sddeviceplus - wrappers for the sd-device folder in libsystemd
> …etc
>
> Or should we just try and have a single c++ wrapper repository for all of
> libsystemd?  In that case should we simply rename sdbusplus to libsystemdpp
> and start putting more code in it?

I had envisioned all the sd-bus wrappers in one library, however, I'm
quite flexible about any of that.  My primary goal with pushing this
line of thought it to reduce code duplication in openbmc.  So many
daemons have the same methods that just talk to sdbusplus, etc.  So it
makes sense to me to have a utility library for interfacing with
sdbusplus for common tasks.  phosphor::util::getService(),
phosphor::util::get... etc, so they can be maintained in one place.
Even phosphor::util::network::... because those are becoming
duplicated.  It might make sense to have multiple libraries for the
utilities, which is also fine.

>
> -brad