Steve Milner wrote:
On 1/14/08, Eli Criffield <elicriffield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I hope this doesn't reopen a closed topic, I know it was left at "low
priority, but patches may be accepted". I disagree. I don't think func
should ever use SSH. SSH is a great protocols for what it does, RPC is
not it. One of the reasons to use func is the limitations of SSH.
I was being polite :)
Basically I meant that patches that didn't look heinous evil would be
accepted, fully expecting
that any patch would be heinous evil :)
To use SSH as a transport you could ...
Yep, not fun :)
I've been using some form of SSH to manage many systems for years. I
finally decided that SSH as a transport is not suited for managing
many systems at once. When people say "cool does it do SSH" there
missing the point, they should be saying "It doesn't use use SSH,
Cool!". What is needed is a simple RPC protocol authenticated by a
signed key chain. SSL and XMLRPC fit the bill.
Totally! This is why in my reply to Greg I was saying this is largely
an education issue.
Not using SSH is why Func deployment (and by deployment, I mean getting
the certs
all passed around) is so easy.
If puppet weren't
written in Ruby I'd probably use that.
Yeah, this is totally not a config mgmt system, though if anyone ever
wanted to build a real
config management system on Func I think it would be easily doable.
The question is, how would
it be fundamentally different from the others? The one thing it would
definitely need first is more
standardization around the API.
If your preference is Python, bcfg2 is Python, though I don't have a lot
of familiarity with it.
_______________________________________________
Func-list mailing list
Func-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/func-list
