[hobbit] Future of Hobbit

[Henrik Stoerner]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:06:09AM -0500, s_aiello at comcast.net wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Henrik Stoerner wrote:
> > This assumes you want to keep on using bb-hosts as the source of your
> > layout - I don't think that is a good idea.
>
> The only reason I would assume the need to continue to use the bb-host file as 
> the source of layout, is because the Hobbit alert & threshold 'PAGE=' 
> specifications do. 

Correct, but the PAGE setting for alerts and client-thresholds does not
have to be obtained from bb-hosts ... It is really just a way to
classify a group of hosts as having "something" in common, and this can
easily be done in a different configuration file format.

Off the top of my head, it might even make sense to turn this entire
concept upside-down: Instead of using a layout-definition to group hosts
together in the alert/client config, we could use a *host*
classification to define which hosts should be put on a given webpage.

> And again, I am not a huge fan of XML, but it seems that it would be a good 
> option to migrate toward (from bb-hosts). That way if people did want to 
> write a new GUI for Hobbit it would not be difficult. It would also be 
> possible to add new fields, without affecting core Hobbit functionality. i.e. 
> writing a version of BBMap for hobbit. 
> 
> But again, I remember in a previous post your (and other maillist members) 
> reluctance to use XML for any configuration. So it almost seems like a 
> catch22.  

Well, I never said it would be easy :-) You are right, there are
inherent conflicts between the different goals here. I am not a big fan
for of XML configuration files (Hobbit doesn't have any, because I
haven't bothered to go find a decent XML parsing library), but is IS a
de-facto standard and there are lots of tools for handling such files.
But I'd still like to weigh the pros and cons of using XML. Right now, I
am not convinced.

> So as I see it, ideally need a layout config that:
> 1. Simple to define layout.
> 2. Open to custom field definiton additions.
> 3. Open to allow for 3rd party GUI development.

These 3 I agree with.

> 4. Doesn't break core hobbit functionality.

This is something we can control ourselves. So don't let that stop you.

> I maybe stating the obvious, just figure I would flush out my thoughts.

It often helps to discuss things that seem obvious. Often, they are not.


Regards,
Henrik