Hi Bernard,
thanks for your clarification.
I believe I understand the problem you present, but I still think the benefits outweigh it. After all this is still an overall improvement, it makes text editing easier and allows for comments (when text editing). It doesn't improve GUI approach via Manager, but it doesn't break it or remove functionality either. This whole proposed change is aimed at making the manual text editing easier. And as long as changing the configuration (containing comments) using IntelMQ Manager preserve the comments (which should be possible) I do not see any downsides to this. Out-of-band comments would remain intact for those important use-cases. I do agree that Manager would be second class because it couldn't see the comments, but frankly this is never going to be fair fight (cli vs gui), both have their pros and cons. And the only "con" this change introduces for Manager is that text editing gets more new "pros". Which doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me.
Best Regards, Filip
On 12/15/20 5:52 PM, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
Hi Filip,
thanks for sharing your viewpoint!
Am Dienstag 15 Dezember 2020 17:12:41 schrieb Filip Pokorny:
I believe people using IntelMQ Manager for wiring the graph don't really need to care what kind of configuration format is used.
To clarify: The problem I see with some configuration formats are the out-of-band comments that would not be visible in IntelMQ Manager, so the Manager would be a second class. And if there is meaning in the comments, they cannot be semantically diffed.
The out-of-band comments can be part of important use cases (like saving different configurations in Mercurial SCM or so). In order to suggest something I'd personally would need to explore and understand these use cases in more detail.
Best Regards, Bernhard
IntelMQ-dev mailing list IntelMQ-dev@lists.cert.at https://lists.cert.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/intelmq-dev