On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:20:48PM +0700, namnd wrote: > > * The configuration file is in XML so netupdown can handle sophisticated > configuration. Editing the XML the configuration by hand or by software > will be easy and comfortable.
Forgive me, but "yeah right!" Have you ever actually edited XML by hand? Try tweaking a build.xml or some other suitably complex XML document and you will think differently. Basically, if your XML is so simple that it can be edited by hand, your needs are such that it is better handled without XML. If your needs are such that you actually require XML, then what you end up with is too complex to edit by hand. > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> > <config version="1.0" logLevel="debug"> > ... > </config> > * The configuration syntax is unified and consistent, for example, I > need a VPN tunnel to run on a pppoe connection, the computer has more > than one ppp interfaces. You know, ppp numbers are automatically > allocated so it's quite troublesome, netupdown can solve this problem > because interfaces are mentioned by a fixed name, netupdown will > translate it into a name that the kernel can understand when necessary. > When the pppoe interface is down, the openvpn process is killed, when > the pppoe interface is up again, netupdown will generate the new openvpn > option file based on a template, and bind the local ip address to the ip > address of pppoe. > In this case, the configuration is as easy as: > <interface name="fpt1" type="ppp"> > <ppp type="pppoe" options="" depend_on="tap1" username="***" > password="***"/> > <network id="11" name="FPT1" auto="1"/> > </interface> > <interface name="tap7" auto="0" type="ethernet" sub_type="openvpn"> > <openvpn remote="210.245.87.151" rport="19817" comp="comp-lzo" > depend_on="FPT1"/> > <network id="7" name="TAP" auto="1" config="dhcp"/> > </interface> > This is supposed to be easy to read and easy to edit by hand? It seems to me that a properly commented normal text configuration file would be much more appropriate to the task. I will not even comment on the rest of your examples, except to say that the "Swiss Army Knife" approach is certainly not in the *nix tradition. > After reading the brief overview of my software, please give me your > opinions: > 1. What is the quality of idea (1 star to 5 star) > 2. What is the quality of the source code (1 to 5) > 3. Your other comments I do not have time to review the code right now. However, the abuse of XML that you call a configuration file really needs to be fixed. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
