Hi, in a recent telco the question about the direction of the YaST architecture was raised. In the pase a lot of things have been tried. E.g. integrate different languages (Perl, Python, Ruby), try different build systems (cmake), automatic generation of bindings for C/C++ libraries (libstorage) or simply use common technologies (e.g. CIM). This is not necessarily bad but from my point of view quite a few ideas are stuck halfway (Python integration) or are simply of bad quality (generation of bindings). Even usage of Perl seems to be considered to be no improvement. But instead of removing failed approches we keep them and often do not even look at better ways. As a result the YaST architecture is on one hand more complex and confusing then required and on the other hand lacks quality and features. So now that we have minimal recourses to improve the YaST Architecture we should concentrate on a few improvements instead of dissipate our energies again. So what seems desirable and feasible? Some ideas: 1) Replace YCP with some common language? With more that 100 modules this looks impossible. 2) Allow a common language next to YCP? A good integration seems difficult. 3) Improve YCP (at least fix bugs)? Do we want that? 4) Better bindings of C/C++ libraries for YCP? Other suggestion? Of course we already have a list of ideas (only few about the architecture), see: http://old-en.opensuse.org/YaST/Development/Research Discussion is opened. ciao Arvin -- Arvin Schnell, <aschnell@suse.de> Senior Software Engineer, Research & Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org