[bug#65119] [PATCH 0/8] Sharing service code between Home and System

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andrew Tropin <andrew@trop.in> skribis:

> 1. One of the possible options is to use free-style configurations for
> services, so we can reuse a lot of code and drastically decrease
> duplication (only the service definition itself and a one configuration
> record) and maintanance burden.

We’ve had this discussion before; in the case of key/value-style
configuration, I’m against “free-style configuration” (nginx
configuration is a bit different).

With free-style configuration (I assume you have alists/sexps in mind),
you might end up generating invalid config files, or get obscure error
messages, or whatever; I’ve used Gnus for decades (!), any Gnus user
will know what I mean.  This is Scheme, not Emacs Lisp/Common Lisp.

[...]

> 2. Another option is to rethink service extension mechanism a little bit
> and maybe make it more polymorphic.
> https://lists.sr.ht/~abcdw/rde-devel/%3C87sg56g97i.fsf%40trop.in%3E

I very much support experimentation in this area; I’m sure there’s room
for improvement (like Julien’s extension points, which you referred to
in the message above).

I’m not sure how that relates to factorizing Home/System services though.

[...]

> My point here is: let's solve this issue on another level of
> abstraction, by improving service extension mechanism, not by creating a
> new level of abstraction (as we did in rde or in this patch series) to
> cover the wholes in the previous level.

Do you have ideas on how you’d change service extension to support
Home/System factorization?

> I would be glad to cooperate on this and design possible improvements.

I interpret this sentence as you suggesting that you’re outside the
project—even though my perception is that you’ve been part of it for
some time, even before you got commit rights.  So do feel at Home!
(Pun intended. :-))

Ludo’.