[ On Monday, October 21, 2002 at 09:43:48 (+0200), Julio Merino wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Beep events [was: beep on halt]
>
> So, changing this means a complete different rethought on how to do this.
> As somebody said, it could be nice to implement some kind of event framework
> so different actions can be attached/dettached to events easily. But this
> requires much work and more code... lets see if I can do that... ;)

I wouldn't think an event framework would have to come first.  That
would seem to only be necessary once a second or even third or fourth
similar thing came along.  As frameworks go though it wouldn't have to
be very complex unless someone can come up with a really good reason why
arbitrary events would need this kind of external notification.  An
overgrown framework really would be unnecessary bloat.

> And for names, it may be kern.evt.<event>.<action>.<action_params>

I don't know if that really adds anything -- it all depends on how much
stuff would live within this new level and how closely related all those
things would be in function or purpose.

> (note the
> .evt. level which can simplify things in sysctl program, as I see it).

Well, that's a whole other issue.  The internal design of that thing
stinks to high heaven.  :-)

(one approach to fixing that design has been taken some time ago by the
FreeBSD folks, and for at least some issues it's been very successful)

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <g.a.woods@ieee.org>;           <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>