Re: [Shorewall-users] Feature Request: Shiny new XML format?

[Ed W <li...@wi...>]

On 25/09/2011 09:20, Christ Schlacta wrote:
> I was reading through the config files, and noticed that many of them 
> would be well suited by being replaced or supplemented with an 
> (optionally optional) shiny new XML format that would allow the user to 
> specify only the needed attributes and not have to fill in -s where not 
> needed.  Would prevent such mishaps as 1-too-many or 1-too-few -s 
> resulting in entries being placed in the column, and as I understand it 
> perl already has simple to use XML tools.    Complicated files may end 
> up longer in some cases, but overall specification of rules would be..  
> simpler to write and understand, if a bit more verbose.  Examples:
>

Hi, I have been away for some weeks. 

Actually this is something I have some interest in because I would like
to support a limited web interface for users to customise their firewall
config.  My current thinking on a solution is to store my configuration
in some json file (json is a subset of yaml.  Remember yaml is a massive
specification and to some extent even xml is a kind of subset of yaml!
(with different syntax of course..))

I am considering parsing the json files to create the normal text files
and run shorewall as normal.  However, if this ends up as a completely
literal 1:1 mapping then I guess I would look to try and submit back to
shorewall the ability to directly read .json files?  I really haven't
researched a proper integration, but if the parser is easy to separate
then it would seem possible for shorewall to scan for say "rules.json"
or "rules" and pick it's preferred option.  If the parser should become
very separate (in time) then it would seem that interested parties could
add xml/yaml/sql format support as they prefer?

At the back of my mind is that sqlite support might be nice, but I'm
trying to stick to simple text files in my project at the moment...

Regards

Ed W