On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:21, Eric Wolzak wrote: > Hello all, > > I agree with Erich that it would be wise to get an architecture > before thinking about the implementation. > IMHO it should be : > -easy to configure. > -flexible , so adding new packages is possible without much > programming. > -flexible 2- so it is possible to use the same system on oxygen, > bering ,dachstein, Wisp by merely changeing the Tools configuration > file. > -useable also on "slow" systems.
Agreed, in all likely regards, we are integrating/replacing lrcfg with this project. A good idea would be to consider 'apkg' as well, since it includes some advanced features that are lacking with 'lrcfg'. Considering (and examining) Forth, this will possibly end up in a totally new base system that may or may not be integrated with existing variants and should be considered. A new boot-method and required packaging/configuration compatibility are my reasoning behind this statement. This project will end up with a required baseline for compatibility. In examination of possible Forth implementations, eForth and kForth (18K download) seemed good possibilities. The User's guide for kForth seems pretty easy to interpret. http://ccreweb.org/software/kforth/kforth0.html > The Idea behind this is that as soon as the external Parser is > written, it can create any HTML.template , parsing rules or config > template just by creating a modules or package config file. Thanks for making the flow-charts! The second jpeg is pretty much what I have had in mind. I don't see a distint reason for using uncgi, particularly with POST data, many people on the list also have ~10 line GET parsers as well. Personally, I see a more secure method by using the CGI to simply "set the environment" and call the applicable "executable" to do the actual work, so ineffect the CGI/www-server is the parser and doesn't do the work. The "executable", run under a SUID, can be done in any language that can be interpreted. Does anyone see any problems with this method? > The Modules Config file (which could also be a database can be > different formats: > 1. xml in that case the template, parsing rules and config template > can be generated by merely applying a xsl stylesheet. <snip> > I think I prefer the first option (xml). I would prefer this method as well. I have only one question, will the XML need an interpreter on the www-server? Thoughts??? -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old cell phone? Get a new here for FREE! https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390 _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
