>>>>> "Luke" == Luke Kanies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Luke> If you integrate it with the configuration generator, then Luke> you've got to have a tight semantic bond between the validator Luke> and the generator (i.e., it's not enough that the box be a Luke> mail server, it must specifically listen for smtp requests on Luke> the port we plan on using); this means that the generator has Luke> to have clear semantics here and then have hooks for some Luke> other tool to use them. Luke> Yes, you could specifically add this functionality to a given Luke> tool, but could you create it as a generic component that Luke> could be added to any tool? Could you see a single validator Luke> that could work with Puppet, cfengine, and BCFG2? Luke> I expect Puppet's semantics aren't clear enough right now that Luke> you could do this, although I don't know much about the Luke> validation research, so I could easily be wrong. This was the point of the paper Paul and Ed did last year. The way to go is to agree on an intermediate format that several tools can consume in an opaque fashion. The linkage into a given tool is tool specific, but the constraint compiler, or whatever can just output a single format. For what it is worth, I think that I finally have a good place to plug this interface in. Does anyone have any higher-level tools they want to experiment with? -nld _______________________________________________ lssconf-discuss mailing list lssconf-discuss@inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/lssconf-discuss
