unofficial mirror of guix-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* GOOPS-less Shepherd
@ 2023-04-06 20:16 Ludovic Courtès
  2023-04-07 21:21 ` Maxim Cournoyer
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2023-04-06 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: guix-devel

Hello!

I’d like to release the Shepherd 0.10.0 in a few weeks at most, with the
hope that it’ll be the last stable series before 1.0, which would be
released in a few months.

As part of this, I’d like to clean up the API, which includes removing
the dependency on GOOPS.  The Shepherd had been using GOOPS from the
start but for no particular reason: there’s no inheritance and only a
couple of cases of method overloading.

I started that work, which mostly involves renaming things like
accessors following typical Scheme conventions:

  https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/shepherd.git/log/?h=wip-goopsless

I imagine the following deprecation scenario:

  • 0.10.x would still support GOOPS, as in (make <service> …), but
    that would be deprecated in favor of a more Schemey (service …)
    form.  Under the hood it’s still GOOPS.

  • 1.0.x would no longer use GOOPS at all.  We could provide a ‘make’
    macro so that (make <service> …) would still kinda work.

What’s at stake, mostly, is the ability to reconfigure a long-running
shepherd instance.  Once 1.0.x is in Guix, ‘guix system reconfigure’
will most likely fail to upgrade services on a pre-0.10.x shepherd:
users will have to reboot.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-06 20:16 GOOPS-less Shepherd Ludovic Courtès
@ 2023-04-07 21:21 ` Maxim Cournoyer
  2023-04-08 17:25 ` Bodertz
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Maxim Cournoyer @ 2023-04-07 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel

Hi,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hello!
>
> I’d like to release the Shepherd 0.10.0 in a few weeks at most, with the
> hope that it’ll be the last stable series before 1.0, which would be
> released in a few months.
>
> As part of this, I’d like to clean up the API, which includes removing
> the dependency on GOOPS.  The Shepherd had been using GOOPS from the
> start but for no particular reason: there’s no inheritance and only a
> couple of cases of method overloading.
>
> I started that work, which mostly involves renaming things like
> accessors following typical Scheme conventions:
>
>   https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/shepherd.git/log/?h=wip-goopsless
>
> I imagine the following deprecation scenario:
>
>   • 0.10.x would still support GOOPS, as in (make <service> …), but
>     that would be deprecated in favor of a more Schemey (service …)
>     form.  Under the hood it’s still GOOPS.
>
>   • 1.0.x would no longer use GOOPS at all.  We could provide a ‘make’
>     macro so that (make <service> …) would still kinda work.
>
> What’s at stake, mostly, is the ability to reconfigure a long-running
> shepherd instance.  Once 1.0.x is in Guix, ‘guix system reconfigure’
> will most likely fail to upgrade services on a pre-0.10.x shepherd:
> users will have to reboot.
>
> Thoughts?

Sounds reasonable to me.  Thank you for working on it!

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-06 20:16 GOOPS-less Shepherd Ludovic Courtès
  2023-04-07 21:21 ` Maxim Cournoyer
@ 2023-04-08 17:25 ` Bodertz
  2023-04-09  1:53   ` Ivan Sokolov
                     ` (2 more replies)
  2023-04-11  8:15 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
  2023-04-19 11:44 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
  3 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Bodertz @ 2023-04-08 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: guix-devel

I don't have strong feelings either way, and the change won't really
affect me too much, but what benefit is there in breaking things?  From
what I understand from your message, users' configs will stop working in
a few months when 1.0.x releases (or with the macro would "kinda work"),
which is at least a short-term con, so what's the long-term benefit of
this change?  Is GOOPS so bad a thing to require?



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-08 17:25 ` Bodertz
@ 2023-04-09  1:53   ` Ivan Sokolov
  2023-04-09  2:37     ` Bodertz
  2023-04-10  0:59   ` jbranso
  2023-04-13 20:33   ` Ludovic Courtès
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ivan Sokolov @ 2023-04-09  1:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bodertz; +Cc: guix-devel

Bodertz <bodertz@gmail.com> writes:

> I don't have strong feelings either way, and the change won't really
> affect me too much, but what benefit is there in breaking things?  From
> what I understand from your message, users' configs will stop working in
> a few months when 1.0.x releases (or with the macro would "kinda work"),
> which is at least a short-term con, so what's the long-term benefit of
> this change?  Is GOOPS so bad a thing to require?

If I understand correctly, that will allow Shepherd to run on GNU Mes,
a Scheme interpreter written for Guix bootstraping.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-09  1:53   ` Ivan Sokolov
@ 2023-04-09  2:37     ` Bodertz
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Bodertz @ 2023-04-09  2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: guix-devel

Thanks, makes sense.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-08 17:25 ` Bodertz
  2023-04-09  1:53   ` Ivan Sokolov
@ 2023-04-10  0:59   ` jbranso
  2023-04-10 18:49     ` Ivan Sokolov
  2023-04-13 20:33   ` Ludovic Courtès
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: jbranso @ 2023-04-10  0:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ivan Sokolov, Bodertz; +Cc: guix-devel

April 8, 2023 8:54 PM, "Ivan Sokolov" <ivan-p-sokolov@ya.ru> wrote:

> Bodertz <bodertz@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I don't have strong feelings either way, and the change won't really
>> affect me too much, but what benefit is there in breaking things? From
>> what I understand from your message, users' configs will stop working in
>> a few months when 1.0.x releases (or with the macro would "kinda work"),
>> which is at least a short-term con, so what's the long-term benefit of
>> this change? Is GOOPS so bad a thing to require?
> 
> If I understand correctly, that will allow Shepherd to run on GNU Mes,
> a Scheme interpreter written for Guix bootstraping.

So by removing the Shepherd's dependency on GNU Mes, the Guix project
benefits by simplying its bootstrapping process?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-10  0:59   ` jbranso
@ 2023-04-10 18:49     ` Ivan Sokolov
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ivan Sokolov @ 2023-04-10 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jbranso; +Cc: Bodertz, guix-devel

jbranso@dismail.de writes:

> April 8, 2023 8:54 PM, "Ivan Sokolov" <ivan-p-sokolov@ya.ru> wrote:
>
>> Bodertz <bodertz@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I don't have strong feelings either way, and the change won't really
>>> affect me too much, but what benefit is there in breaking things? From
>>> what I understand from your message, users' configs will stop working in
>>> a few months when 1.0.x releases (or with the macro would "kinda work"),
>>> which is at least a short-term con, so what's the long-term benefit of
>>> this change? Is GOOPS so bad a thing to require?
>>
>> If I understand correctly, that will allow Shepherd to run on GNU Mes,
>> a Scheme interpreter written for Guix bootstraping.
>
> So by removing the Shepherd's dependency on GNU Mes, the Guix project
> benefits by simplying its bootstrapping process?

Where did this come from?  No, Mes is not a Shepherd's dependency,
please read the quotes again.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-06 20:16 GOOPS-less Shepherd Ludovic Courtès
  2023-04-07 21:21 ` Maxim Cournoyer
  2023-04-08 17:25 ` Bodertz
@ 2023-04-11  8:15 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
  2023-04-13 20:34   ` Ludovic Courtès
  2023-04-19 11:44 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Liliana Marie Prikler @ 2023-04-11  8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ludovic Courtès, guix-devel

Am Donnerstag, dem 06.04.2023 um 22:16 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> What’s at stake, mostly, is the ability to reconfigure a long-running
> shepherd instance.  Once 1.0.x is in Guix, ‘guix system reconfigure’
> will most likely fail to upgrade services on a pre-0.10.x shepherd:
> users will have to reboot.
This caveat however, will only be a one-time thing, right?  That is,
once running Shepherd 0.10.x or 1.0.x, you can reconfigure without
needing to reboot supposedly until the next API break happening at
1.90.x or 2.0?

Cheers


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-08 17:25 ` Bodertz
  2023-04-09  1:53   ` Ivan Sokolov
  2023-04-10  0:59   ` jbranso
@ 2023-04-13 20:33   ` Ludovic Courtès
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2023-04-13 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bodertz; +Cc: guix-devel

Hi,

Bodertz <bodertz@gmail.com> skribis:

> I don't have strong feelings either way, and the change won't really
> affect me too much, but what benefit is there in breaking things?  From
> what I understand from your message, users' configs will stop working in
> a few months when 1.0.x releases (or with the macro would "kinda work"),
> which is at least a short-term con, so what's the long-term benefit of
> this change?  Is GOOPS so bad a thing to require?

It’s not that GOOPS is “bad”.  There are two things: some overhead (not
too bad, but still a bit), and a number of more or less subjective issues.

The programming style GOOPS encourages is not something I enjoy; I think
it makes it harder to reason about the code (you have to think about
applicable methods, new methods can be added at run time, etc.)

Another argument is consistency with Guix, and consistency within the
Shepherd (right now the GOOPS bits feel out of place).

Overall, I think we’d rather “clean things up” before 1.0 so we don’t
have to introduce breakage later.

I hope this clarifies the situation!

Ludo’.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-11  8:15 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
@ 2023-04-13 20:34   ` Ludovic Courtès
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2023-04-13 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Liliana Marie Prikler; +Cc: guix-devel

Hi,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> skribis:

> Am Donnerstag, dem 06.04.2023 um 22:16 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> What’s at stake, mostly, is the ability to reconfigure a long-running
>> shepherd instance.  Once 1.0.x is in Guix, ‘guix system reconfigure’
>> will most likely fail to upgrade services on a pre-0.10.x shepherd:
>> users will have to reboot.
> This caveat however, will only be a one-time thing, right?  That is,
> once running Shepherd 0.10.x or 1.0.x, you can reconfigure without
> needing to reboot supposedly until the next API break happening at
> 1.90.x or 2.0?

Yes, exactly.

Ludo’.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-06 20:16 GOOPS-less Shepherd Ludovic Courtès
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2023-04-11  8:15 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
@ 2023-04-19 11:44 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
  2023-05-03 20:49   ` Ludovic Courtès
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Christine Lemmer-Webber @ 2023-04-19 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hello!
>
> I’d like to release the Shepherd 0.10.0 in a few weeks at most, with the
> hope that it’ll be the last stable series before 1.0, which would be
> released in a few months.
>
> As part of this, I’d like to clean up the API, which includes removing
> the dependency on GOOPS.  The Shepherd had been using GOOPS from the
> start but for no particular reason: there’s no inheritance and only a
> couple of cases of method overloading.

Neat!

"Obviously" Shepherd should use Spritely Goblins, which also does not
use GOOPS ;D

> I started that work, which mostly involves renaming things like
> accessors following typical Scheme conventions:
>
>   https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/shepherd.git/log/?h=wip-goopsless

404s for me.

> I imagine the following deprecation scenario:
>
>   • 0.10.x would still support GOOPS, as in (make <service> …), but
>     that would be deprecated in favor of a more Schemey (service …)
>     form.  Under the hood it’s still GOOPS.
>
>   • 1.0.x would no longer use GOOPS at all.  We could provide a ‘make’
>     macro so that (make <service> …) would still kinda work.
>
> What’s at stake, mostly, is the ability to reconfigure a long-running
> shepherd instance.  Once 1.0.x is in Guix, ‘guix system reconfigure’
> will most likely fail to upgrade services on a pre-0.10.x shepherd:
> users will have to reboot.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ludo’.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: GOOPS-less Shepherd
  2023-04-19 11:44 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
@ 2023-05-03 20:49   ` Ludovic Courtès
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2023-05-03 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christine Lemmer-Webber; +Cc: guix-devel

Hello!

Christine Lemmer-Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> skribis:

> "Obviously" Shepherd should use Spritely Goblins, which also does not
> use GOOPS ;D

Yup!  I was thinking that a starting point would be to implement a
“bridge” as part of the new built-in “service collection” (under
shepherd/service/*.scm).

>> I started that work, which mostly involves renaming things like
>> accessors following typical Scheme conventions:
>>
>>   https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/shepherd.git/log/?h=wip-goopsless
>
> 404s for me.

It’s merged now, and in 0.10.0rc1!  :-)

Ludo’.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-05-03 20:49 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-04-06 20:16 GOOPS-less Shepherd Ludovic Courtès
2023-04-07 21:21 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2023-04-08 17:25 ` Bodertz
2023-04-09  1:53   ` Ivan Sokolov
2023-04-09  2:37     ` Bodertz
2023-04-10  0:59   ` jbranso
2023-04-10 18:49     ` Ivan Sokolov
2023-04-13 20:33   ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-04-11  8:15 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2023-04-13 20:34   ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-04-19 11:44 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
2023-05-03 20:49   ` Ludovic Courtès

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).