IPC, RPC, Protocol to use between fe/be?

atark at thepipeline.net atark at thepipeline.net
Thu Jun 14 16:42:30 PDT 2001


This is something to consider.  But...  XML is very flexible.  The great part 
is you do not need to write a parser.  If you have an XML profile you can use 
it to do almost anything (with a bit of programming or scripting).   Using 
the bash example below you could create the bash scripts from the XML profile.

Personally, I think the current profile syntax is way to complicated and 
cumbersome, but that can be fixed.  I've also toyed with creating my own 
custom "ML" using flex/yacc to create the syntax and parser.  I workied with 
somethng similar a few years ago and it was pretty slick.

My motto is "simpler is better" as long as you keep the future in mind, if 
you build it right you can expand on it later.

Hmmm...  I just realized that the subject of this post has to do with the IPC 
stuff and not the profiles??  So maybe what I said above doesn't make so much 
sense anymore.  Oh well I'll send it anyway.

--Andy
atark at thepipeline.net


On Thursday 14 June 2001 08:40 pm, you wrote:
> Ok XML again. Simon for one doesn't like the notion of XML and perhaps
> there are others who think the same. I don't blame them, part of me is
> asking the same questions if there aren't alternatives to XML. It's a
> good thing we check that out, in case others ask these questions again,
> we at least can say "No, absolutely not. XML is by far the best way to
> go, because of this, this and that. Oh and of course becuase of these".
>
> Like my other email said: if you really wanted to go with shell
> scripting, some RPC implementation could just dump a script instead of
> an XML profile and have it do the same. Though, I do see limitations and
> problems because of bash' nature being a shell, not a program that runs,
> can run in background, can poll for waiting messages on a socket, etc.
> Bash wuld need to start some helper program which in turn needs to be
> able to SIG<something> bash to have it to do something alternate (say on
> SIGALRM bash goes check for a file /profile-useme and work on that one.
>
> I don't really know how we would deal with bash in such a way, I just
> see a worl of complications showing up that we won't have with non-bash
> (then still remains the question of XML or some custom ALFS-message
> format. Ok, why re-invent the wheel when XML suites already. We'd most
> likely make up our own ML version (ALFML? It's all ML, the only thing
> that makes an ML HTML, SGML or XML is the DTD behind it).
>
> Enough mumbling, main thing I wouldn't mind learning about are
> XML-alternatives, if any. I'd like to be able to answer:
>
> 	"No, absolutely not. XML is by far the best way to go, because
> 	of this, this and that. Oh and of course becuase of these".
>
> Right now, I couldn't do that without using very weak reasons.
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list