[ntp:questions] Details about code structure

Pradhap Nirmal Natarajan prathapnirmal at gmail.com
Thu Nov 22 04:41:49 UTC 2007


Thanks all for your responses and suggestions. I also suggest more  
comments and documentation along the code rather than a separate doc.  
I am not sure if there is a review process for new commits but it  
will be great if we can stick to minimal set of documentation  
guidelines. I am sure this will be atleast of minimal help to  
developers and a lot of help to people who need to understand on  
what's going on.

thanks
~

Pradhap Nirmal Natarajan
Pivot Systems
http://www.pivotsys.com
Trivandrum
prathapnirmal at gmail.com
prathap at pivotsys.com




On Nov 22, 2007, at 8:59 AM, David L. Mills wrote:

> Richard,
>
> May I recommend the skeleton appendix in the RFC draft along with the
> main text and flow diagrams. More detailed diagrams are in the UDel
> report cited in the RFC. I took great care in commenting the protocol
> and crypto source code, expecially since some of my code is fifteen
> years old and I might not remember why I did what I did.
>
> There would be considerable value in a utility that could parse the
> makefiles, identify the build sources and header files, then make an
> index showing where each external variable is referenced. I did that
> manually for the code skeletoon, but that's not the real article.
>
> Dave
>
>
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> Harlan Stenn wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <c9950d540711171143r4208d50q4eb8ec44f5fd594 at mail.gmail.com>,
>>>>>> prathapnirmal at gmail.com (Prathapnirmal) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> prathapnirmal> Hi All, Which will be the best document to refer if I
>>> need to
>>> prathapnirmal> know information about the organization of code in  
>>> ntp?
>>>
>>> And the answer is...
>>>
>>> prathapnirmal> One obvious way is to look at the makefile.am in
>>> prathapnirmal> each directory to figure out what is made out of  
>>> what.
>>>
>>> That is the definitive answer.
>>>
>>> prathapnirmal> ... I will put it across to everyone to see if  
>>> there is
>>> prathapnirmal> any documentation related to this. Also is there a
>>> design doc
>>> prathapnirmal> that talks about this or other details?
>>>
>>> There really isn't anything else.
>>>
>>> The "market" for such a document seems to be small, and then  
>>> there is the
>>> issue of who would maintain it. Now, if somebody were to  
>>> volunteer to
>>> write
>>> and maintain such a document I'd be happy to put it in the  
>>> distribution.
>>>
>>> Would such a document really be all that useful?  It seems to me  
>>> that the
>>> codebase is pretty small, and it should not be all that hard to  
>>> figure
>>> out.
>>>
>>
>> I had my computer count the lines of code in one of the older  
>> versions,
>> about two years ago.  70,000 or so lines of code may be a small  
>> number
>> to you but it seems like a lot to me.  I once looked at the code  
>> for the
>> Motorola Oncore driver to try to understand what was going on and   
>> failed.
>>
>> It's never easy to wrap your mind around someone else's code,  
>> especially
>> when there's that much of it.  It's even tougher if you're not really
>> fluent in C.  I can struggle though it but I'm not what you'd call  
>> fluent.
>>
>> Rather than writing a separate document, I'd recommend carefully
>> commenting the code itself.  This would include identifying what the
>> variables and data structures represent, and cross referencing the  
>> code
>> to the RFC.  I'm not going to hold my breath though.  Most  
>> programmers
>> would rather write code than documentation.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> questions mailing list
> questions at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions




More information about the questions mailing list