Re: [system-tools]xml configuration file

On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 14:48, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> Hi Tiago,
> 
> As I told you in IRC, while it might be a sensible solution and that all
> distros should unify in a single configuration schema, I don't think at
> all that we should give the first step here, my main reasons are:
> 
> - distro specific tools & apps will rely in the distros' config files,
> causing data duplication, misinformation, errors, user headaches, etc...
In a first step, yes there would be a duplication, because you would
have your old configuration files (if any). But if GST proves to be a
good/the best configuration tool for network, boot and all the marvels
it already does then distros would some creating their own or would
provide a compatibility layer for reading from the configuration file.

> 
> - we still should parse config files (at least for creating the initial
> home-made config file), and at some point, we still should rewrite the
> config files, for data consistency
Not very much, i don't think the user would be that "pissed off" because
he lost his old configuration files after he installed GST. I think he
would appreciate if this would happen, but not demand it.

> 
> - this is only valid in the network config issue, IMHO the GST look for
> a broader point of view for config stuff
Indeed, GST attends to larger problems then this alone. Yet this would a
case study for the migration of a unified conf file, supported by GST,
thereby providing an appliance of the idea.

> - This would be more a maintenance pain than a bless for the gst
> developer(s?)
As i see it, after the migration to a XML configuration file, backwards
compability with distro specific netconf files would be a non issue,
therefore there would be no maintenance problems at all.

> 
> Of course, these problems should vanish if the distros agree on a common
> config file, but I expect more to see cows in the moon than distros
> agreeing on something like this :)
In some ways I agree with you. Maybe if we could convince someone in a
distribution to do it, others could follow.



> 
> 	Regards
> 
> El mié, 28-04-2004 a las 01:55, +0000, Tiago Cogumbreiro escribió:
> > I would like to propose to the list an effort to try to create a XML
> > specification file that would provide the network configuration details.
> > 
> > Why?
> > Unix has a know problem, a miss of standard. Because of the openness of
> > Open Source each of us tries to create the best solution for a given
> > problem, while this is great for some things it is not that good for
> > other, because it may lead to fragmentation and disorder, therefore
> > losing effectiveness.
> > 
> > GST, and you should know this more than i do, suffers alot from the
> > "each distribution has it's own spec" effect, in what concerns to
> > network configuration (from now on netconf) each distribution has it's
> > location and syntax on debian it's a file in /etc/network/interfaces in
> > redhat it's located under /etc/sysconfig/networkm under slackware in
> > rc.network, it is an extraneous operation to add and keep up to date
> > support on each of this platforms.
> > 
> > The solution to this problem, IMHO, is not that difficult. Why not
> > provide a new spec for this type of file, and not a spec based in bash
> > or any other syntax, we need something technically advanced such as XML,
> > it gives us all the benefits that all of you must already be aware of.
> > Some might say that it won't solve all problems, and that's true, one
> > thing that has to be created is a service that should be called uppon
> > system boot that would load the configuration file, but i don't think
> > that this is harder then supporting all configuration files available on
> > every distribution (and operating system) that GNOME might used on.
> > 
> > We want an universal configuration tool, why not depend on a spec that
> > is more accessible and open?
> > 
> > With one configuration file it is up to the back-end to take care of how
> > it is implemented, whether it's on Linux or on FreeBSD. This way the
> > work of back-ends is focused on configuration and not parsing data.
> > 
> > This case study was made on netconf, i leave it to you to think about
> > the following: Is it possible to have other tasks GST currently does
> > with configuration files?
> > My guesses are that in some cases, as services, it isn't possible, the
> > only viable solution is the LSB kind of approach.
> > 
> > Tiago Cogumbreiro
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > system-tools-list mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/system-tools-list
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> system-tools-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/system-tools-list