Hello Lynn, Charles , List > On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:21, Eric Wolzak wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I agree with Erich that it would be wise to get an architecture > > before thinking about the implementation. > > IMHO it should be : > > -easy to configure. > > -flexible , so adding new packages is possible without much > > programming. > > -flexible 2- so it is possible to use the same system on oxygen, > > bering ,dachstein, Wisp by merely changeing the Tools configuration > > file. > > -useable also on "slow" systems. > > Agreed, in all likely regards, we are integrating/replacing lrcfg with > this project. A good idea would be to consider 'apkg' as well, since > it includes some advanced features that are lacking with 'lrcfg'. > > Considering (and examining) Forth, this will possibly end up in a > totally new base system that may or may not be integrated with > existing variants and should be considered. A new boot-method > and required packaging/configuration compatibility are my reasoning > behind this statement. This project will end up with a required baseline > for compatibility. > > In examination of possible Forth implementations, eForth and kForth > (18K download) seemed good possibilities. The User's guide for > kForth seems pretty easy to interpret. > > http://ccreweb.org/software/kforth/kforth0.html > > > > The Idea behind this is that as soon as the external Parser is > > written, it can create any HTML.template , parsing rules or config > > template just by creating a modules or package config file. > > Thanks for making the flow-charts! > The second jpeg is pretty much what I have had in mind. > I don't see a distint reason for using uncgi, particularly with > POST data, many people on the list also have ~10 line GET > parsers as well. Personally, I see a more secure method by > using the CGI to simply "set the environment" and call the > applicable "executable" to do the actual work, so ineffect > the CGI/www-server is the parser and doesn't do the work. > The "executable", run under a SUID, can be done in any > language that can be interpreted. Does anyone see any > problems with this method? >
I agree with you I didn't mean the Programm uncgi but rather some engine creating variables from the cgi statement. > > > The Modules Config file (which could also be a database can be > > different formats: > > 1. xml in that case the template, parsing rules and config template > > can be generated by merely applying a xsl stylesheet. > <snip> > > I think I prefer the first option (xml). > > I would prefer this method as well. I have only one question, > will the XML need an interpreter on the www-server? No it is not even available on the router as the xml files are only used to generate the "parsing rules", "html template" and "config template". I just have to be more precise with describeing ; ) ( > > Thoughts??? > -- > > ~Lynn Avants > aka Guitarlynn Reactions ? Eric Wolzak ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old cell phone? Get a new here for FREE! https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390 _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
