Re: Configuration (File) System
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> 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.
>
> ...
>
> 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.
Hmmm, I wouldn't get sidetracked by XML. ACAP and ldap are not XML
based. Their primary characteristic's are 1) hierchical data
structure (exactly what you spec out); 2) server based; 3)
existing standards. I suggest that there are significant advantages
to going with a server based solution. Lastly, I couldn't say
Whether a server based solution is more complex than a file based
system.
Just my 2 cents. Good luck on this project.
--
JP
Reply to: