(Logical change 1.18)

git-svn-id: https://svn.mcs.anl.gov/repos/bcfg/trunk/bcfg2@69 ce84e21b-d406-0410-9b95-82705330c041

1 files changed, 30 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/why-is-this-different-from-LDAP b/doc/why-is-this-different-from-LDAP
index e69de29bb..f670ebe21 100644
--- a/doc/why-is-this-different-from-LDAP
+++ b/doc/why-is-this-different-from-LDAP
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+1. what we aren't
+
+I feel the need to write this to describe why our approach isn't the
+same as the LDAP approach. When designing any metadata-based
+configuration management system, there is substantial temptation to
+start describing all aspects of the system that are relevant to system
+configuration. This approach leads to a few things. First, there are
+many long discussions that center around the proper representation
+for particular constructs. (ie, what attributes does a network
+interface have) The second outcome is that configuration details that
+might get used are typically included. This stems from the desire to
+have a comprehensive solution. The third, and most useful outcome is a
+large knowledge base from which many details of system configuration
+can be queried. This, in general, is a noble goal, but tends to
+require a lot of pain to get there. 
+
+Switching to a BCFG1 install involved a good amount of pain/effort in
+order to classify software components into categories dictated by our
+model. I am not sure how well a more complicated process would be
+accepted by any user community. 
+
+2. how to do better
+
+Any system will have complex portions of configuration, and
+site-specific oddities. A single, simple description scheme certainly
+won't provide the flexibility required to model complex
+interdependencies. The approach we are taking is to provide a simple
+scheme while allow arbitrary logic to be embedded. (generators) Using
+this scheme, simple configurations remain simple, and complex
+configurations are possible.