Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
No. It means either a) {if the Apache style of config is considered the best} extracting the relevant part of Apache into an independent library or b) designing the config API from scratch and throwing away the old cruft (which isn't a major part of the Apache codebase anyway).Hence, this approach is wrong. Webmin, LinuxConf, YAST, DrakeConf, you name it. Huge duplication of efforts and _none_ of the above working properly. You need an API ("abstraction") that will both generate AND parse the configuration. Moreover, the Apache itself MUST use this very API. And all other servers and applications. Throw in replication and remote access protocol and that will be the sysadmin's paradise... And no, I don't mind it sounds like Active Directory.1. This means rewriting apache.
I wholeheartedly agree that for such a base API to catch on, it must be highly portable.Recall that apache is used not only on linux, but on hosts of other platforms. Some linux developers tend to be linux-centric, and ignore the fact that the same software needs to run on other platforms.
As I wrote earlier, I in general like the GConf ideas, but it's bound to Gnome (well, it's supposed to be used kinda standalone, but since it further depends on about dozen of libraries which you never find on non-Gnomified systems... and of course, linking a daemon like crond to ten libraries just to parse its config is definitely an overkill).2. gnome (partially in 1.4, more so in 2.0) is a test to such a technology.
Why is it bad (if correctly implemented)? And why the daemon is a must? Think about embeded SQL. The backend could be a daemon (e.g. PostgreSQL), but could also be a plain file (see SQLite). Basically, you just swap the header files. Ideally, there is a backend-neutral wrapper layer with many plugins. Administrating a standalone desktop? Configure it to use local files for the config data storage and don't worry about daemons. Just as /etc/hosts vs. named. A more complicated schemes including local caching etc are possible, too.Am I the only one who thinks a configuration daemon is bad?
Fantastic. Ever wondered why people invented HTTP? Of course, these were Windows freaks who didn't know how to use telnet. The "unix framework" would be to ssh to the web server and run the browser there. Right? And IMAP is completely obsolete in the unix framework, too: ssh to the mail server and open inbox in vi. If rsh/ssh is the ultimate answer to the remote management, then vi is the ultimate configuration GUI. Not?And anyway, I remind you that there is already a remote access protocol on linux that is quite powerful, and works very well. It also fits into the unix framework: rsh/ssh
Regards,
Evgeny
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
