On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 09:40, Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Oliver Kurth wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 01:48, Jens Hermans wrote: > > > Currently I'm working on a technology to be able to represent > > > configuration files as filesystems. The whole thing is outlined at > > > http://users.pandora.be/paranet/CFS.htm , but I'll try to sumarize it > > > > I have a very similar idea, see > > http://advogato.org/person/oku/diary.html?start=4 > > Have you considered the possibility XCAP or ACAP both of which are > IETF draft standards. They seem very close to what you are looking > for. A summary is available at: > > http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-05-29-a.html Well, Jens explains on his page why he does not want to use xml. I do not want either, though it would be possible to add an xml interface, for both input and output - once there is a tree, you can make xml out of it easily. > Along the same lines, wouldn't ldap be a more generic solution than > a new file system? Same arguments would apply to ldap as for xml. At least my goal (cannot speak for Jens), was to have it _simple_, with as low overhead as possible, because I am also thinking about embedded systems. Something that can be used by package scripts, without them having too many dependencies. Greetings, Oliver
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part