| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Elektrified X.org releasedElektrified X.org releasedPosted Nov 30, 2004 20:09 UTC (Tue) by evgeny (guest, #774)In reply to: Elektrified X.org released by khim Parent article: Elektrified X.org released
Well, ext2/ext3 is a filesystem of choice for a very significant (probably still major) part of Linux users. Further, apache/bind/.... will NEVER officially use anything that's available for Linux only (and other Unices don't necessarily have all that advanced filesystems).
But more importantly, a dumb fs-based config is just that: a dumb one. Whereas a decent configuration system should provide for logical expressions, remote management, replication, versioning, transactions/rollbacks etc. All this is practically impossible with a filesystem-based config tree; and all this is posssible with RDBMS.
(Log in to post comments)
Elektrified X.org released Posted Nov 30, 2004 22:45 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] But more importantly, a dumb fs-based config is just that: a dumb one. Whereas a decent configuration system should provide for logical expressions, remote management, replication, versioning, transactions/rollbacks etc. All this is practically impossible with a filesystem-based config tree; and all this is posssible with RDBMS. If your filesystem is dumb - it's not possible. If your filesystem is smart - it can be done. True - it should be supplied as addon over simple system but all-in-one solutions are never good.
Elektrified X.org released Posted Dec 1, 2004 10:31 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > If your filesystem is dumb - it's not possible. If your filesystem is smart - it can be done.
So we can return to this discussion when every man and his dog have such smart filesystems - including embeded devices etc.
Elektrified X.org released Posted Dec 2, 2004 10:08 UTC (Thu) by szh (guest, #23558) [Link] Don't forget to also return to the fact, that not every man and his dogwant replication, versioning, transactions/rollbacks etc. And many of those who need, can do this with filesystems + there own scripts. Just regular cron /etc [or parts of /etc] [incremental] backups satisfy many men and dogs. So the new system will give drawbacks only for those men and dogs.
Elektrified X.org released Posted Dec 2, 2004 10:28 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > Don't forget to also return to the fact, that not every man and his dog> want replication, versioning, transactions/rollbacks etc. > And many of those who need, can do this with filesystems + there own > scripts.
Continuing this nice logics, there is no need for a unified configuration system altogether - just as everyone has been adjusting dozens of different configs during the last twenty years of mainstream Unix usage, so we can do it further on. Right?
Elektrified X.org released Posted Dec 1, 2004 0:45 UTC (Wed) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] remote management etc. is beyond the scope of Elektra. Electra is not aware of the semantics of the configuration. It just provides a simple method of accessing configuration.
Adding remote management, versioning on top of that is proably possible.
The main non-standard feature required for Elektra to work propely is symlinks. And even without it most things will work. Other than that all you need is basic file-system interface.
Elektrified X.org released Posted Dec 1, 2004 10:47 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > remote management etc. is beyond the scope of Elektra. [...] It just provides a simple method of accessing configuration.
Exactly. It, essentially, implements the day-before-yesterday functionality (INI configs) yet requires facilities not present in all current filesystems.
> Adding remote management, versioning on top of that is proably possible.
Well, the keywords here are "on top" and "probably". ;-) With the same expected level of success as adding security on top of DOS was. It just strikes me that a project with such an ambitious goal as converting _all_ the Unix configuration mess to a single API didn't bother thinking of even yesterday's requirements to system configuration!
Elektrified X.org released Posted Dec 2, 2004 23:07 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] > Exactly. It, essentially, implements the> day-before-yesterday functionality (INI configs)
No, it is not INI config. With INI config you have only thre-level deep tree of configuration (file, section, key). Electra does not have this silly limitation.
> yet requires facilities not present in all current filesystems.
The *required* facilities are avilable everywhere. On some systems it will be less efficient. But even ext3 now has support for a more scalable directory access . Try tune2fs -O dir_index
> Well, the keywords here are "on top" and
Rebuilding everything from scratch has even less expected chance of adding security.
> It just strikes me that a project with such
Into a system that is easy to use by eveything and can be used anywhere.
Elektrified X.org released Posted Dec 3, 2004 19:49 UTC (Fri) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > How can you configure the network using this daemon if the networked daemon needs the network configuration just to get going?
In exactly the same way I can run a LDAP server holding the user DB under a given account. Also, think e.g. of gcc bootstrapping, running of fsck on / before anything is mounted etc. We have a lot of similar chicken-or-egg problems.
|
|
||||||||||||