> At 17:03 22/05/2005 -0700, Lori Barfield wrote:
>
> What I'm really suggesting is a community-based
> standardisation effort to try to define in detail the "strict syntax".
I think this is a killer. I think the problem is too large, too
apparently intractable for a community project. This sounds like
something that the IETF (or a large enough vendor) would have a whole
team working on. There may be difficulties in negotiating with vendors
to provide a more-or-less static interface to the their systems.
There should be some level of "official" support, otherwise the various
vendors may intentionally break compatibility with this config tool.
(There are many reasons why they might do this.)
> I'd envisage that the interpreter would save the configs it
> derived in a standardised filesystem layout (what ITIL might call a
Configuration
> Management DataBase) and call out to the deployment subsystem to
supply the ...
As you say, you're not a programmer, so don't worry about the
implementation, it'll be taken care of by someone doing the coding. The
issues Daniel Hagerty has identified need some resolution first.
I think it's excellent that we've produced a wishlist. Now we need some
money and time thrown at intelligent types to produce a workable idea
that the business/community types can code and develop.
I wonder if anyone besides Daniel is actively analysing and thinking
about this issue from a hard comsci perspective (turing, completeness,
etc).
Regards,
Francis
Follow-Ups:
|
|
