On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:39:26AM -0600, David Douthitt wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2001, at 20:21, Scott C. Best wrote:
>
> > Yes, agreed. Taking this to an extreme, you could wrap a user login
> > for, say, ~firewall, into a custom shell that had nothing *but*
> > compiled firewall configuration commands.
this is called inventing a special purpose interpreted language... writing
it as an interpreter allows you to use it as a component in a variety of
ways, including as a shell. All the usual compiler theory applies.
> > I'm working with some others to build something like this now,
> > tying it closely with ssh host-authentication for remote-management
> > capability. Seems promising...
>
> This is very interesting. I'm thinking that writing a program in
> Ruby to handle this would be a good way to go - except that Ruby
> doesn't run under LEAF yet, and is huge by LEAF standards. It
> wouldn't be that hard to create a login under LEAF that would act as
> a network transfer agent, then receive only firewall commands via an
> ssh-encrypted session.
One quick question... how big is ruby compared to Python? I know
python+libs+tk+kitchensink is huge, but if you strip it back to the
interpreter and essential libs, it should be reasonable... I assume the guys
who did python lrp's could answer.
If the sizes are comperable, what is the advantage of using Ruby over
Python? You get a little security by obscurity maybe (and we know what
that's worth)... but you'd pay all the costs of using an obscure language.
I'm not looking to start a language war... I'm just curious what it is about
Ruby that makes it attractive.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info, including pgp key
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
