George Bonser <grep@shorelink.com> writes:
> So imagine we have a procdump util or pd. One might say:
>
> pd /proc/net/dev
>
> And pd will assume it is parsing for text to a display.
>
> pd --XML /proc/net/dev might produce output formatted in XML.
> pd --HTML produces output formatted in HTML.
hrmpf.
again -- if we're going to play the XML bandwagon, let's _not_ output
html from tools like 'procdump'. the idea must be to use the XML to
produce html. please? ;)
> I think it could be quite useful for things such as grabbing
> configurations to put into a database or for such utils as webmin or
> other web based management tools.
_very_ agreed.
> The key is, of course, having a standard output format when dumping
> data from /proc. As it stands now, the "Tower of Babel" system that
> has been built makes any kind of standard interface for READING
> /proc nearly impossible.
hm. agreed again. personally I'd love have a tool like 'procdump' more
or less map the tree structure into an XML document.
> I also like the idea of having two interfaces ... one where you can
> go completely down the tree and get the value of each item. This is
> particularly useful for places where you need to write something
> like a 0 or a 1 AND having a "file" that gives the output of
> everything below it in the tree in the above format. I suggest a
> name of dump for the file. As an example, /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf on
> my system might look like:
I agree with G. Allen Morris III, '.dump' is a nicer name. _but_ the
use of this '.dump'-file could be substituted by calling 'procdump' at
the appropriate level of the tree. hm.
-- Terje- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:17 EST