On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 20:37, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * jamal <1110240219.1044.83.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-03-07 19:03
[..]
> Absolutely, I plan to be compatible to as many existing protocols as
> possible. The conceptual idea behind is to add another abstraction
> layer before that protocol and have XSLT do the transformation into
> those protocols.
>
> The path could look like this:
>
> (netlink) (API/daemon) (XSLT)
> Kernel -> libnl -> libnl_XML -> netconf
>
That or you could have netconf just call libnl_something else (which i
have been trying to emphasize as the "the layer above libnl"). What you
have above will work fine and i very flexible for netconf and maybe even
for SOAP like activities but will end running in a shell which at some
point will become a bottleneck.
> I left out the byte order issues here because I'm not yet sure how
> to solve them although as stated already, using XSLT would be one
> possible path to follow.
>
There is no byte order issues with ASCII.
> > I believe there is a open source project which does netconf already;
> > maybe all they need is just your library and xml interface ... I will
> > look it up and send you some pointers.
>
> You probably mean Yenca,
Aha, yes - thats the one i saw.
> I'm looking into it but it uses ioctl for
> configuration and only implements a small subset of the functionality.
Yes, i remember that code now. They do use ioctls.
Unfortunately your libnl is not backward compatible and a lot of
embedded devices are 2.4.x based. Ive mentioned this before. You need to
provide a ioctl interface for some things as well and perhaps provide a
compile flag to select between the two.
On completion, I thin they had some basic stuff working which is a good
start (If i recall they could set ip addresses and routes). The
architecture seemed pretty sane to me; the whole was in the access to
the kernel configuration - they did something but it appeared weak.
This is where you could help i think.
> I've CC'ed Benjamin Zores which is stated as the author in the source
> files.
>
> > BTW, what happened in the discussion with the gent who was doing SOAP
> > (or was going to do SOAP?)
>
> The discussion somewhat stalled but I didn't forget about it. Having
> the above architecture would allow to simply put the XML based
> architecture indepedant change requests into SOAP envelopes and distribute
> them.
>
Well, the way i see it is like this:
3rdlayer: netconf/someotherapp
secondlayer: "the layer above libnl"
firstlayer: libnl (netlink level)
layer0: kernel
second layer is where that gents code would have been a good fit. He was
already providing some good APIs, bindings etc. XML could be just one
more binding.
The problem is i think you are trying to do all layers.
cheers,
jamal
|