next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects

Greetings.

Historically, I was first involved with CCN near its beginnings as a mere
user. A few years later I joined the technical committee. Ive been heavily
involved with CCN since then, rising to a board position a month ago. My
primary interests were with the PPP system, though I was responsible for a
rewrite of 'expires' and the necessary changes to 'linerize'. Im on the CCN
working group helping to rewrite the grant proposal surrounding the 2.0
project.


I think that CSuite 1.x has enough problem that 2.0 should be a complete
rewrite. Because of this, we should reevaluate everything. I think that the
primarily language should move to Perl, or PHP with SQL being used for data
storage; there are more people around who know, and more people around who
don't know, but want to learn these, compared to shell. Not to mention that
these languages are for more capable of scaling up for large projects. 1.x
is tied very much to the unix philosophy, and while valid, that only scales
so big.

CSuite should be two things; new packages that provide functionality which
is unobtainable now, and glue so that CSuite can talk to existing systems
that one would want to use. Linuxconf knows how to read and write files like
/etc/exports, but it doesn't include a NFS server.

The 'business logic' should be separate from the CSuite provided framework.
Don't hard code policy and business practices into the core system.

I don't see any reason why 2.0 shouldn't be OSS; AFAIK the only package that
might cause a problem is PINE, and we don't need pine in 2.0. There will be
cvs access, mailing lists, etc; all the same kind of tools that will allow
for CSuite to be built by scattered people in a close way also would allow
for it in a more open fashion.

The development methodology, so far as I can tell, for 1.x was: build things
for a live system, on a as needed, adhoc basis.  Then sift through and see
what's really needed, what works and what's broken, and what duplicates
functionality, and make a distribution out of it. Don't document anything,
don't comment anything. Change database formats randomly, as necessary.

Given the crufty nature of 1.x, and that I don't think 2.0 should have any
text interface, I cant see any reason to stay with that code base.

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects