> > > > I rarely write long lines, so I think that is probably good data. I > > did not actually expect to see that so much of it was editfiles, but > > it is interesting to know. This manages various parts of about 200 > > machines, maybe 10 different OSs. > > Now if it could only be abstracted... > > I think CFEngine implements two things -- policies and protocols. Policies > are the answers to "what type of system is this?" Protocols are the answers > to "how do I implement a policy?" My question is has anyone given thought to > producing generic protocols for CFEngine that could be used everywhere > (within the assumptions of the protocol)?
When you say protocols I wonder if you mean like SNMP, i.e. network only. Most of the work on cfengine has been about how policy is implemented. I refer you to the long list of papers. On the website. As a generic reply to the editfiles debate: I have been giving this much thought. The point, as identified by several, is that files have different formats. (In CS lingo, they form different languages/grammars). That means you need editing tools that can understand those grammars in a typed way. As of now, cfengine editfiles was meant for Unix line based editing. But what about things like XML which have context free grammars (parenthetic structures). That requires a diffent model. At LISA, Aeleen Frisch and I will be presenting our proposal for cfengine 3 syntax and data model which will allow cfengine 3 to accomodate all these issues. If you want to read up in advance, go to the svn server and choose project "cfengine 3". There's a pdf in the svn repos with a fifty page theoretical discussion about all this. M _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list Help-cfengine@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
