On 20 Jun 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [Marc Slemko] > | > | I'm not trying to be negative, but I really think this is far too > | much to require of someone. Most of the SQL databases aren't > | trivial to setup, and if you think that the sort of person who > | doesn't like editing a text file will like installing and > | configuring a SQL database... > > you definitively have a point there, but I would still like to make > the interface to the data-backend general enough to be able to plug in > alternatives to flat files, dbm, btree etc.
Yup, certainly. However I think that much of that is more appropriate to be looking at for 2.0, while still doing a first-generation config interface for 1.x. The first time it may suck, then perhaps it can be redone for 2.0 and made to work even better. > > | > the administration client talks to the configuration server and > | > presents the user with a GUI or a tty-interface. the client should be > | > portable so people can use it on UNIX, Windows, Mac etc. and at this > | > time it's not very important what language� we write it in. > | > | Erm... it is damn important if you want to find a good free > | cross-platform GUI development environment that allows people to > | compile it without installing all sorts of libraries. > > what comes to mind is Python and perhaps Java. How many Unix boxes have the stuff required to handle Python? Not many. Perhaps it can be installed, but again that gets into far more complicated things than we want. Think Ziff-Davis when you think of who will be using it. Then think how much trouble they would have making anything complicated compile under Unix.
