[Info-vax] VSI and Process Software announcement

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2016-09-24 17:27:03 +0000, Craig A. Berry said:

> On 9/23/16 3:05 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> 
>> Get the configuration morass under control.   That isn't a combination 
>> of a command-line tool, a DCL menu, and a plethora of rustic, artisanal 
>> configuration files.   Pick one, preferably a replacement for the 
>> command line tool.
> 
> Or how about an API with the existing command interface re-implemented 
> (plus completed, cleaned up, and otherwise fixed) on top of that?

Ayup.   The lack of APIs and tools on OpenVMS for general configuration 
management and control means everybody — including OpenVMS development, 
layered products and the rest — does everything differently, too.

Having plist files and an API and some consistency would go a long way 
toward reducing the insanity.

With an IP network stack, I'd expect some complexity by necessity, and 
the platforms that have adopted and integrated Apache or Postfix or 
such do still have those configuration files underneath, but other 
operating systems have placed consistent front-ends and better 
defaults.   This so that most folks can usually avoid rummaging, and so 
that folks don't have to discover the sheer joy of running an open 
relay when TCP/IP Services can't find its SMTP configuration file.

That's if we don't get server and application profiles and the rest of 
the tools.   (Some consistency here makes profiles easier, too.   This 
as folks are going to the common APIs to get and set configuration 
data, and not via their own bespoke APIs and parsers, which means 
adding profiles becomes much easier.   OpenVMS itself used to be good 
at this sort of abstraction, too.)

But again, I'm aimed at 2021 here, and not at what we have no, nor at 
what DEC EMA and OSI and NCL had tried...



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC