[augeas-devel] [Matahari] Fwd: Re: Augeas-based configuration agent

[Radek Novacek]

On Thursday 12 of May 2011 16:49:34 Alan Pevec wrote:
> adding back augeas-devel and David
> 
> On 05/12/2011 02:15 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Andrew Beekhof<andrew at beekhof.net>  
wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Radek Novacek<rnovacek at redhat.com>  
wrote:
> >>> Forwarded from augeas-devel. I think the suggested API could work
> >>> for us quite well. Our config agent will be reduced to only one
> >>> method "run" which will take string (commands separated by \n) or
> >>> list of strings (augeas commands) and some flags (e.g. bool for
> >>> suggested AUG_RUN_CONTINUE). This method will return error code and
> >>> content of "out" file (maybe parsed somehow).
> >>> 
> >>> Do you agree with this proposal?
> >> 
> >> I think its pretty close.
> >> 
> >> Though we may want to keep frun but alter it slightly to look like:
> >> 
> >> int aug_run_url(augeas *aug,
> >> 
> >>                       char *url, FILE *out,
> >>                       unsigned int flags)
> >> 
> >> and support at least file://, http://, ftp://

That can do application that calls augeas lib (library for config agent in our 
case). It will download the file and then pass the content to the augeas.

> >> 
> >> Not so interesting for DBus, but highly useful in the cloud.
> >> 
> >> Also, I think we want a dedicated "getter" accessor.

Do you mean that this function will do just one query? Or more of them?

> >> 
> >> Something like:
> >>     aug_get(augeas *aug, char *path, unsigned int flags).
> >> 
> >> But I'm not sure how to get the values out.
> > 
> > s/sure how to/decided which is the best way to/
> 
> Instead of everything-is-a-file mantra, what about having callback function
> as an argument for aug_run? augeas lib would call it when there's something
> to give out or read in. That way client apps can support different sources
> if they wish, augtool for example really only needs to support files.
> 
> Alan

I don't see any advantage against simple just passing strings? Pass string 
with commands and get string (or list of strings) with results.

Radek Novacek