On 9/21/19 2:59 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Is it usable without any plugins? Does the null plugin take much
space? I
> wouldn't think so. Would it be too messy to just ship the null plugin
> unconditionally, even if just for this particular purpose?
Right! My original plan was that we could change the API to drop all
required callbacks. The "null" plugin would become the plugin which
had no callbacks and could therefore be built in to the nbdkit binary.
Unfortunately my plan doesn't quite work because the null plugin has a
config parameter (nbdkit-zero-plugin is more like this "null" plugin).
Oh well.
Yeah, the 'zero' plugin is a lot more compact than the 'null' plugin.
Do we have to ship a separate nbdkit-zero.so, or could we make nbdkit
itself behave as if the zero plugin were in use if no actual plugin is
dlloaded?
> On the other hand any program that relies on such probing to work
> might depend not only on nbdkit, but also on the null plugin.
Indeed, or as you say above we could package one of the regular
plugins with the server to guarantee it is always available.
Even if we require a plugin, always packaging the zero plugin along with
nbdkit seems reasonable (we'd have to tweak the docs a bit to mention
which plugin we settle on as being always available).
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:
qemu.org |
libvirt.org