Re: Webmin RPC

[Joe C. <jo...@sw...>]

The two pence version:

I am of two minds on things like this.  On one hand, using standardized 
and heavier protocols (heavier merely in the sense of the implementation 
of the protocol--not necessarily that the communications are heavier or 
more taxing on the network or the machines) leads to Webmin being less 
'standalone'.  It will need other perl modules--against the Webmin 
rules, generally.  On the other hand, it would allow integration of 
Webmin with things that may not be 'Webmin-ified'...and potentially 
leverage existing development efforts in Webmin into less redundant 
efforts.  Modules save time--I use them all the time in my perl 
programming and I really couldn't be very productive without them (I'm a 
rank amateur at many complex Perl topics).

The longer version:

I am constanty torn between this dichotomy in general--not just the 
specific RPC case.  The problem of, balancing code reuse with Webmin 
usability.  If Webmin used a standard web template system (TT2, etc.) 
the GUI could break free of the constraints of the current 
half-templated and half-hardcoded system, but then everyone has to 
install TT2 before using Webmin.  Integration is difficult if not 
impossible, and that extra labor takes away a primary motivation for 
code reuse (i.e. saving Jamie from having to spend time developing a 
template system or an RPC system or whatever).

The negatives (the primary one being, everyone has to install a bunch of 
extra perl modules) don't bother me in the least.  Me and cpanflute got 
this deal going--anything from CPAN that I can build without any hassle 
I can make a package that goes into my default system kickstart install 
in a matter of minutes.  Maybe this isn't a deal casual users are 
willing to make.  So I would happily encourage Jamie to make Webmin less 
standalone, if it will add functionality, flexibility, and give Jamie 
more time that would have been spent reinventing wheels.  I'd probably 
make enemies of Webmin users, though...

That said, XML-RPC is one of those that might just be a no-brainer.  It 
would be transparent to folks doing casual Webmin work (i.e. they only 
work directly on a single machine) and would give those of us with 
nerdier tendencies a standardized way to link into a variety of systems. 
  There will probably still be a few folks for whom this would be a 
negative--folks doing embedded installs of Webmin, perhaps?  But they've 
got to strip Webmin to the bone anyway, so this wouldn't be any major 
hurdle for them, I wouldn't think.

So, the summary: I don't know.  I can't make up my mind.  I enjoy 
ranting about it from both sides.

Wil Cooley wrote:
> I've been thinking about it a bit lately and wanted to know what
> anyone else thought about this: Webmin uses a "proprietary" RPC
> mechanism (I say "proprietary" because it's not really a standard;
> not because it's locked away by copyright or whatnot) and was
> wondering if it might not be possible or desirable to re-work the
> HTML-RPC mechanism to use a "standardized" XML-RPC mechanism.
> There are Perl modules (and modules for other languages) for
> developing XML-RPC clients and servers; so it might be nice to be
> able to develop client-applications or non-Webmin-integrated web
> applications using the interface.  Has anyone else considered this
> or agree with me?
> 
> Wil
-- 
Joe Cooper <jo...@sw...>
http://www.swelltech.com
Web Caching Appliances and Support