3 ms·
You mean like SNMP? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Network_Management_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Network_Management_Prot...
by jdmichal 10y ago
You mean like SNMP?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Network_Management_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Network_Management_Prot...
- kbenson 10y agoI mean something that hasn't been overcomplicated and extended to the point that it's impossible to assume simple standard behavior. That is, SNMP might make a good underlying protocol that something that is much more constrained might sit on top of. Ideally, a simpler markup language that can compile down to SNMP. E.g. a "device" has one or more named "config-forms" (which an app might choose to represent each as a separate tab or section), with a well defined set of settings with a name, type (integer, decimal, sized string) and description. A device might have one or more "reports" which provide a consolidated view of particular variables. Very simplistic, but with simplicity comes interoperability. SNMP by itself is far too general to support this without some constraints put on top of it (as far as I know, at least. I have experience with SNMP, but not a huge amount, and not for a long time).
- jdmichal 10y agoSure. I don't think SNMP is complete in any way for this solution... For instance, it communicates in OIDs, while a user interface would want names and data constraints at a minimum. But I also agree that it would make a good base to build on top of. I mostly just wanted to avoid the xkcd standards problem [0]. I'm pretty much in the same place on SNMP... Had to do some integration with it 10 years ago. Had to even do some Google-fu to remember the name, since the only thing that would come to mind was SMTP. [0] https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/