On Thursday, February 10, 2011 05:36:00 pm Johannes Meixner wrote:
Hello,
On Feb 10 15:25 Thomas Goettlicher wrote (excerpt):
Your attached diagram looks similar to the overview designed by jdsn and me: +---+---+---+---+ +--------------+
| Q | N | g | c | |webyast client| | t | C | t | m | +------+-------+ | | | | k | d | |
+---+---+---+ | http
| libyui | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+---+ +------+-------+
| lib shell | | yast modules | | rest service |
+-----------+--------+---------------+----------+--------------+
| common lib: reads/writes config files, starts/stops services | | | integration of polkit and zypp |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| SYSTEM |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
I think I understand Robert's attached diagram but I know that I do not understand your overview.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the diagram. The common lib provides an api for system configuration. E.g. it allows to add a new print queue, it knows which files to touch and checks user's permissions. It doesn't know anything about the presentation to the user. That's the yast module's task. It assigns the common lib's methods to input widgets shown by libyui (qt,ncurses,gtk). The positive aspect is that other frontends like webyast also can use the common lib for system configuration. Even other distros might use the common lib and build their own config frontends on top of it.
All what I pick from your overview is that when I want to make a yast module for my specific config task, it would be insufficient.
I see that additionally I have to care about stuff like "rest service" and "lib shell" (whatever this is) and I fear that I have to implement at least parts of my code up to tree times - I won't do this - I would simply give up.
Furthermore I would be hit by whatever shortcoming of the "common lib" which seems to sit in between my code and the actual SYSTEM that I want to change. The "common lib" may not exactly provide what I need for my specific config task so that I would have to implement whatever workarounds...
Conclusion: This YaST thingy is both insufficient and too complicated for me. I will write my own setup tool in my own preferred language. I know how to do it so that the tool does what I want.
If you like you could use me as some kind of "test case" whether or not an individual contributor would like to join the project.
Great! Thank you for your support. It makes sense to design a framework that can be used in the end.
What I mean: The more the whole stuff is complicated (or oversophisticated), the less likelihood that someone gets sufficiently interested to actually contribute something.
Or in other words: If the first attempt to make a simple setup tool fails because the whole stuff is too complicated, it was probably the last attempt.
Kind Regards Johannes Meixner
-- Thomas Goettlicher SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org