Re: Proposal: Network configuration file format

[Rene Mayrhofer <rmayr@vianova.at>]

Inaky Perez Gonzalez wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Rene" == Rene Mayrhofer <rmayr@vianova.at> writes:
> 
>         Hi
> 
> Rene> OK, after reading your repsonse I think I will drop my proposal
> Rene> and try to make some patches to your working code.
> 
>         I would not drop it that fast, I mean: I've seen Anthony's
> implementation, and it works, but the description language is somewhat
> limited to be plain. Ok, the main problem is not the language, but the
> structure.
I (shame on me) had not the chance to look at it yet, therefore I do not
know the grammar exactly. But I think that the language could be
enhanced if needed or the parsing of the config file could be made
modular. Then an easy migration to another config file format WOULD be
possible (maybe XML with my proposed structure inside). However, as I
want something the really works as soon as possible, I think for the
moment I will stick with Anthony's code and try to enhance it. All I
want is the possibility to configure a powerful firewall.
 
>         With your language proposal it may be made easier for parsers
> (being something like XML) in config utilities to work with. In fact,
> a parser for that language that generates an in-core tree structure
> with everything it's seen in the file is quite easy to code.
I think so too. Configuration tools would have an easier life. But I
like Anthony's schemes. They will have to go in my structure before an
migration could happen.
 
>         I don't say it should be migrated _now_ to the format you
> proposed, but I'd ask not to drop it so fast.
I did not make myself clear: I do not want to drop the whole concept,
but in my opinion working code is a lot better than just a proposal. 

I hope we can work on this together, because I do not think I can make a
system that everybody wants to use just on my own.

Rene