Re: Parrot, cfengine, and embedded languages

[Christian Pearce]

On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 18:10, Tim Nelson wrote:

> > It would make for a very hackable project.
> 
>       Am I right in assuming that you mean that we would have a lot more 
> flexibility in our cfengine scripts?

Not only in our cfengine scripting, but the core itself.  It would be
nice to be able to include no concepts into the code quickly.

>       So that gives you a basic idea of how long it will take.  So by 
> January 1 next year, Parrot/Perl6 ought to be around.  It might even be 
> out before Longhorn/Enlightenment 1.0.  Are we expecting to look at 
> cfengine version 3 before then?  I'd expect that we'd be no further than 
> the discussion stages by that point.  After all, Mark and I still need to 
> have the editfiles discussion; IIRC, the last suggestion was having 
> multiple "layers" of editfiles, all with different levels of 
> intelligence.  But we still didn't agree on various other things.

re: Cfengine 3

I guess this would be up to Mark.  Seems there was a stir over the shift
in development last month.  I have a deadline for releasing 5.0 of
SysNav.  Once that is out the door I want to get involved in the
community and development.  John Sechrest was fielding a lot of the
information gathering on where to take Cfengine development.  I owe him
a few more emails.

I think if we were to see something like this happen it would require a
dedicated group of skilled hackers.  Who are willing to commit a lot of
time and resources to the effort.

Personally I would attempt it in a separate project as an experiment to
see how everything fits together.

>       To refresh the memory of anyone who cares (not just this link, 
> but also the rest of the thread):
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-cfengine/2004-01/msg00086.html
> 
>       :)

I will give it a read.

-- 
Christian Pearce
http://www.commnav.com
http://www.perfectorder.com