C. Gatzemeier | 9 Feb 2004 14:34
Picon
Picon

alternative roadmap proposal


Hello,

I understand that since I was not so conviced about the proposed changes I 
need to try to show an alternative. So here I'll try.

In my eyes CFG is a important joining piece that is needet to bring unix 
systems and higher level interfaces (GUIs protocolls etc.) together in a 
consistent way.

So one point is to make it scale easily and modular from small to large and 
not include too much too fast.

I like the schematic given at
http://config4gnu.sourceforge.net/docs/schematic.html
Maybe just the authentication, remote administration, and backup/restore needs 
to be moved one layer up to avoid unnecessary difficulties.

The middlelayer provides a common representation in XML with addiional 
features and logic.
This is CFGs main thing, providing a good and unified abstraction of the 
configuration. Everything else gets much easier when build on that.
It's ok to hand XML back an forth as long as it is going to be used localy, it 
is just analogous to opening the config files directly.

Alternative interfaces can be build on that CFG representation and constitute 
new parts of the "CFG top layer" WBEM and LDAP seem to be of particular 
interest here. On the other hand a CFG bottom layer LDAP parser would also be 
very interesting for systems that have part of their config stored in LDAP 
directories.
(Continue reading)

Justin Yackoski | 11 Feb 2004 04:49

Re: alternative roadmap proposal

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:34:45 +0100
"C. Gatzemeier" <c.gatzemeier@...> wrote:

> I understand that since I was not so conviced about the proposed
> changes I need to try to show an alternative. So here I'll try.

I really appreciate your feedback, I'll admit that I'm not completely convinced that WBEM is the best
technological/design-based direction, but I'm fairly convinced that it is the best overall decision
for the CFG project.  I'm all for whatever will help CFG the most, which may or may not be what Jason and I
initially decide on.

> I like the schematic given at
> http://config4gnu.sourceforge.net/docs/schematic.html
> Maybe just the authentication, remote administration, and
> backup/restore needs to be moved one layer up to avoid unnecessary
> difficulties.

This is also a sticking point for me.  The main advantages that WBEM/CIM gives us are remote administration
and a sort-of abstract configuration editing system to build upon.  Is the CIM spec more limiting than our
XML data model, yes, absolutely.  Will it always be, I hope not. 

> The middlelayer provides a common representation in XML with addiional
> 
> features and logic.
> This is CFGs main thing, providing a good and unified abstraction of
> the configuration. Everything else gets much easier when build on
> that. It's ok to hand XML back an forth as long as it is going to be
> used localy, it is just analogous to opening the config files
> directly.
> 
(Continue reading)


Gmane