| Matthew Rosewarne on 10 Jan 2008 13:06:41 -0800 |
|
On Thursday 10 January 2008, Dan Widyono wrote: > One problem I have with this entire conversation is I haven't read any > shining example of a good configuration API that has consistently improved > syntax across multiple diverse vendor products (on one OS, much less across > multiple OSes). I wasn't advocating any particular implementation, but merely musing about what I see to be an area for improvement. I'm not entirely sure why there was such a flurry of replies, and I really don't get where all this talk of the Windows Registry comes from. > I agree. In Linux there is no standard library framework for such work. > That could enable useful further interactions, and that's speaking as a > manager (policy driven), as a sysadmin (consistency, reproducability, and > maintainability), and as a user (ooh look, turn this dial and that > happens!). I assume programmers would love having another library to play > with. :) The key term I'm thinking of is "interface". Although it's not often described as such, opening a config file up in an editor is an interface to the configuration data. This interface is great for those whose OS consists solely of a kernel, a shell, and an editor, but not so good beyond that. Making a system that would allow for more automated management of configuration data *without* depriving the skilled admins of their ability to do their thing is not an easy task, but I do think it would be possible with some cleverness, as well as hindsight. %!PS: Bonus activity! Can you spot where I make fun of EMACS? Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|