Re: gEDA-user: [RFC 1/6] Non-Turing-complete configuration files.

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 17:53 +0100, Árpád Magosányi wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Sorry if I will be too long, but this is an important question.
> Short version: Don't Do That!

Rebuttal:

Least important reason: Turing complete may present security
implications.

(BTW: Just saying "sandbox" the interpreter is very easy. Actually doing
it properly is another matter.)

Real crux of the matter: If you accept free-form input, it becomes
inordinately more difficult to write any sane GUI, or write-back of
changed config options. (Since the config file might be arbitrarily
complex).

The time saved in being able to write back configs, or provide a nice
GUI for some (not necessarily all) of our config  - which is more than
just firing up $EDITOR and handing the user the file, will more than
make up for any effort required to handle the conversion to non-turing
complete configs. In fact Peter B has already done most of the work - so
that is a non-issue.

Firewall software is in a completely different class to CAD
applications. A GUI is expected by most users (although not necessarily
all those on geda-user).

That said, I am surprised you didn't find similar problems in writing
configs for your firewall. Don't your users demand a GUI / web
interface?

-- 
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user