Arvin, thanks a lot for stepping forward and starting this dicussion !
* Arvin Schnell <[email protected]> [Jan 28. 2011 16:50]: > > So what seems desirable and feasible? Some ideas: Which goals would you achieve by implementing these ideas ? > > 1) Replace YCP with some common language? With more that 100 > modules this looks impossible. A lot of modules will have to be removed anyway as there are no resources to keep them all. Replacing YCP seems more feasible with a limited set of modules (implementing a limited set of features) > > 2) Allow a common language next to YCP? A good integration seems > difficult. I would assume this will add confusion. > > 3) Improve YCP (at least fix bugs)? Do we want that? Can you name any specific areas in YCP urgently requiring fixes ? > > 4) Better bindings of C/C++ libraries for YCP? Having good APIs is certainly a big plus, but investing into YCP does not seem appropriate. > > Other suggestion? > Can we make existing YaST modules reusable, i.e. by providing well defined APIs (D-Bus, REST, Perl, Python, Ruby, whatever) ? Klaus --- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
