From: Michele Andreoli (m.andreoli@tin.it)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:40:12 CEST
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 03:49:29PM +0200, Dumas Patrice nicely wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Right. Only DBMS mechanism can solve. My dream is a Linux Configuration
> > Registry over SQL.
> > In this way we can configure our Linux box via web using phpmysqladmin!!
>
> I don't think it is the really right way. In my opinion there should be
> an independance with regard with storage.
SQL was proposed in order to solve multiple concurrency. Otherwise, how
to solve, if registry is contained in a file?
>
> That was exactly the aim of the TUCS project.
>
> > I explored it a little. It mantains an own internal DB?
>
> I don't think so. If I am not wrong it is a set of crafted perl scripts
> which access /etc.
So, an old-way tool.
> >
> > It is possible to add a Registry-Protocol-Specification without
> > to break the "decentralized development"?
>
> It is, but it isn't easy. All the developpers has to agree with a common access
> scheme and a comon interface with storage layer. It is almost impossible
> in the unix world, given the inheritance left by old unixes.
This is pessimism :-) Developers agreed with SMTP protocol in order to
write mail-reader, isn't true? They can agree on the configuration API.
This might me perceived as irriting the very first time, but on the
final step, the API is useful for the developer itself. A work already done!
>
> > I think yes: in the decentralized devolpment we use common protocols already:
> > like X, of PPP or SMTP or POP3.
> > Why to non have a protocol to store registry info??
>
> There are many others norms, like UNIX 98, some posix... But these
> norms/protocols come from proprietary world. The set of norms coming from
> the free software world I know are here
> http://www.freestandards.org/
> with the biggest which seems to be
> http://www.linuxbase.org/
> These are right steps, in my opinion, but there will only be acceptance
> of existing practices. Thus the issue here is to get every projects
> to use an uniform configuration scheme. After that it can be normalized...
> It is a chicken and egg problem !
> I don't think a database based on files is less usable than a DBMS or
> a registry in memory, like for windows. With file locking, journalising,
> a common format and common access methods text files may be nice configuration
> repository.
Mmmm ... this is the backaward direction, compared to modern database.
>
> > I we still like to go in /etc and change /etc/hosts by hand, we
> > cannot pretend a registry in Linux!
> > What you think?
>
> I think that /etc is allready almost a registry, except that it isn't
> normalized.
:-) It lack exactlyy of what we are seaching for.
> I don't think registry is better as it is, but still the idea of a common
> format and a common access method is a good idea.
> Anyway I think that gnome and kde are adopting such a normalized configuration
> scheme, based on the one used in microsoft. But I might be wrong.
If you are meaning what I see in the .kde directory, it appears
as a directory with many subdirectores. The structure is almost a registry,
but it is for user basis, so no concurrent access.
But I'm not informed.
Michele
-- "Physics is like sex: it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it" (Richard Feynman) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.dk For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:23 CET