On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 17:53 +0100, Árpád Magosányi wrote: > Hi! > > Sorry if I will be too long, but this is an important question. > Short version: Don't Do That!
Rebuttal: Least important reason: Turing complete may present security implications. (BTW: Just saying "sandbox" the interpreter is very easy. Actually doing it properly is another matter.) Real crux of the matter: If you accept free-form input, it becomes inordinately more difficult to write any sane GUI, or write-back of changed config options. (Since the config file might be arbitrarily complex). The time saved in being able to write back configs, or provide a nice GUI for some (not necessarily all) of our config - which is more than just firing up $EDITOR and handing the user the file, will more than make up for any effort required to handle the conversion to non-turing complete configs. In fact Peter B has already done most of the work - so that is a non-issue. Firewall software is in a completely different class to CAD applications. A GUI is expected by most users (although not necessarily all those on geda-user). That said, I am surprised you didn't find similar problems in writing configs for your firewall. Don't your users demand a GUI / web interface? -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user