[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: netconf control socket protocol: rfc822, xml-rpc, or dbus

On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:32 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Hi there,
> As you may know, netconf[0] sports a control socket with which you
> can control a running instance of the daemon. The idea is that tools
> like /sbin/ifup then are nothing more than clients of this socket,
> issuing the right commands to the daemon process.

Would it be possible to retain /sbin/ifup without the xmlrpc dependency
for embedded use?

dbus itself is becoming common in embedded situations but it would be
nice to have the option of not having to install it for very simple
networking devices.

> Many people have suggested using dbus for this, but I always refused
> because I did not want the dependency. I always wanted to make dbus
> optional, i.e. provide netconf-dbus which, when installed, links
> netconf in with the dbus infrastructure. However, that would be
> independendent of the control socket, for which I still need
> a protocol.

> Python (netconf is currently prototyped in Python)

(netconf itself isn't suitable for Emdebian for this reason - no python,
no perl {no Essential either}.)

> However, I do want (someone) to port netconf to C or C++ once I am
> comfortable with the design. In order to parse XML with C/C++,
> netconf would need to depend on e.g. libxmlrpc++0 or even
> libdbus-1-3 - static linking is out of the question for I'd prefer
> not to die a long and painful death caused by the security team.
> I want netconf to eventually replace ifupdown and thus become part
> of Debian's base system.

Maybe if 'ifupdown' becomes an optional package instead of netconf
rather than losing ifupdown completely?


Neil Williams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: