Re: [Cfengine-develop] Development plan / meeting

[Mark . Burgess]

> Not really; you've already kind of got lists.  You've already kind of got
> iteration.  You've already kind of got modules.  I'm just asking that all
> of these be made explicit and much more usable.  If just those features
> were added to cfengine, it would become infinitely more usable.  I, for
> one, could likely begin using it as my main framework, rather than as a
> tool.  As you mention below, these are not higher level concepts.
> 
> I think this discussion got sidetracked on the monitoring thing; if I had
> better module support, it would be easy to add the kind of functionality I
> want.  And even better, anyone could add it, and it could be shared.  I
> envision plugins being distributed like perl modules, with a core
> distribution and a CPAN-like repository with everything else.

Best to keep new concepts like "framework" out of the discussion. It is
just confusing to me and probably others. Give an example instead, as you
did when I complained :)

 
>> > What is it about cfengine that makes people have to generate cfengine code
>> > instead of being able to work within cfengine?
>>
>> Now you've lost me again in rhetoric. How is coding in cfengine not working
>> with it? You just want menus -- you're a closet windows user!!!
> 
> Um, no?  I'm sorry if this appears like rhetoric to you; I'm trying to
> explain what I want out of cfengine, and provide examples as to why I


Luke, a lot of what you write comes over as rhetorical. Why not be briefer
and less formal? You're among friends here and examples are better than
descriptions -- what would the syntax look like for what you are asking
for?


> think others want the same.  I don't want menus, I want a real language,
> with real datatypes and real control structures.  I want a generically
> useful language which can stand on its own and not require higher-level
> tools to make it usable.  I want to be able to do 98% of my work within
> one framework, without having to constantly step outside that framework
> for one reason or another.  I want the ability to easily add functionality
> to my framework (in the form of modules, subroutine equivalents,
> packages of functionality, etc.).

Then we are agreed -- whew. But I never would have guessed it :)

I am just concerned that we find a syntax that is as simple and
appropriate as possible. I don't want cfengine to look like a
programming language, if possible, even if it has all that functionality.
So we should not rush into a quick fix. 

> And please leave the aspersions out of it; I'm trying my best to be
> positive in this, and I'm trying to put the best light on what I want.

No aspersions from my side, but I was tempted to say the same thing to
you. Some of your ideas seemed quite hostile, as though you were saying
"cfengine is rubbish now -- it needs serious rewriting to be any use"

> I'm especially trying to give you the respect you deserve for getting
> cfengine to where it is.  But I'm obviously failing, if you think I'm
> asking you to create a GUI for cfengine.

I thank you for that. I think we are just experiencing exactly what
I was afraid of in an email discussion -- i.e. different styles being
misinterpreted.

Lets start again. I think everyone is in fair agreement about what is
right and wrong with cfengine, otherwise I would not have invited
participation, but I am adamant that we base our major work on the highest
possible standards of judgement and research. The rest is icing on the
cake.


Mark

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Work: +47 22453272            Email:  address@hidden
Fax : +47 22453205            WWW  :  http://www.iu.hio.no/~mark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~