From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5432A1FF16F for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:54:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5921EE625; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:53:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47ba1e8e-c5d1-4873-91c4-9927b3b72e8c@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:53:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Max Carrara <m.carrara@proxmox.com> References: <20241220185207.519912-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <9e522634-51ff-493a-bcdb-aba560d17d6a@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <9e522634-51ff-493a-bcdb-aba560d17d6a@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.051 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 pve-common 00/12] Introduce and Package PVE::Path & PVE::Filesystem X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Am 02.01.25 um 14:46 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 20.12.24 um 19:51 schrieb Max Carrara: >> Introduce and Package PVE::Path & PVE::Filesystem - v2 >> ====================================================== > > Just an idea, but I'd like to have a discussion about it: Instead of > using Perl for such new general helper modules, would it be nicer to use > Rust+perlmod? > > If our long-term goal is to migrate the Proxmox VE Perl code to Rust, > then we need to switch these modules over at some point in any case (or > drop them after switching over all users of the modules). Are there good > reasons not to start out with Rust+perlmod already? > > You state that you (also) took inspiration from Rust's `std::path` so > could we just use that itself, wrapping via perlmod? Or would the > wrapping be too ugly here or lead to performance issues? Or depending on whether it's nicer, also wrapping helpers from proxmox-sys and friends where we already have similar functionality in our Rust code. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel