I am afraid I must correct some things that have been said on this list :-)
First, LISTSERV is going to have a package concept of course, but keep in mind
that the code for normal operations isn't even finished yet! Please leave me
some time to breathe :-)
Second, Netserv IS going to have a package system 'soon'. I discussed this
with Bert about 1 month ago or so, and we came to the conclusion that a complex
package system with special commands for maintenance of the package and such-
like (c/suchlike/GRAND-like/ ;-) ) is not really necessary. However we did not
agree on the implementation of the thing. Bert wanted a new GETPKGE xxxxx
command while I preferred GET XXXXX PACKAGE. In Bert's approach of the problem,
XXXX PACKAGE was a file which listed all the components of the package (so far
it's ok with me) but users should be able to retrieve it individually with the
normal GET command. In my approach the package file had a filetype of $PACKAGE
and could be obtained via GET while "GET XXXX PACKAGE" sent the whole bunch of
files. Oh well, metaphysics ;-)
Please note that the official reason why the NIC did not move to NETSERV is
that "it does not have a package concept". Also note that NICSERVE does not
have a package system either. However, it is being modified ("right now") to
implement such a feature. Considering that "right now" was 1 year ago, we
may seriously question the programming ability of the authors of NICSERVE ;-)
I'd like to make it clear that LISTSERV is not intended to replace NETSERV.
First, Netserv provides a lot of 'management' functions that are not provided,
and will never be provided by LISTSERV. Second, all the NETSERVs are clones
(for the best!) while each postmaster can configure his LISTSERV as he sees
fit. That means the LISTSERVs will become a real mess I guess ;-) Third, the
NETSERVs are very reliable because they are automatically maintained by their
author. If something goes wrong with Netserv, Bert fixes the problem, does a
PUT of the corresponding exec, and 10 minutes later all the servers are up to
date (*cough* make it '10 to 10,000 minutes' :-( ). LISTSERV is supposed to
implement only basic server functions to provide list owners with a means where
by information files/programs can be communicated to members of a given list,
while the LISTSERV management can make general info files (like the future
equivalent of "LISTSERV GROUPS") available to everybody. NETSERV is a network
information server, LISTSERV is a general purpose one. You could create a list
of Shakespeare fans and store the Complete works of the Master of poetry on a
LISTSERV while I doubt Bert would ever consider placing it on NETSERV ;-)
However, I have implemented tools in 1.5c to ease LISTSERV-to-NETSERV communi
cation. Notes received from a Netserv userid are forwarded to the postmaster.
notes sent to a Netserv userid are automatically re-routed to the corresponding
contact persons (eg 'To: NETSERV@BEARN c/o Bruno Durasse <DURASSE@BNANDP11>').
When I have time I will develop a set of local commands that will allow you to
configure your LISTSERV to provide a sort of 'cache disk' for Netserv files
(to avoid multiple GETs and relieve the network). I had started a special ser-
ver called NETINFO to perform this task before I wrote LISTSERV, and since it
turns out that I will probably never have time to write NETINFO, I will provide
the required tools in LISTSERV to implement it at least partially because I
feel it is an important function, especially for US nodes where there is a
definite lack of host Netservs... :-(
Time for dinner...
Eric
|