Path: utzoo!censor!geac!yunexus!root
From: root@yunexus.UUCP (Operator)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: Ideal router user interface
Message-ID: <9839@yunexus.UUCP>
Date: 10 Apr 90 17:10:48 GMT
References: <18943@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1425@nih-csl.UUCP> <MELLON.90Apr4224336@fenris.pa.dec.com> <1455@nih-csl.UUCP>
Organization: York U. Computing Services
Lines: 20

From: mellon@fenris.pa.dec.com (Ted Lemon)
>Ideally, though, the user interface should be graphical,...

shaffer@net-sun1.nih.gov (Micheal Alan Shaffer) writes:
>Actually I think there is a need for both interfaces. 

  Indeed, both are desirable, and the techniques are as old as time
(Well, as MIT's Project MAC).
  You write a set of functions that do the work, and take the
configuration parameters and options as parameters.  You link
a simple line-mode interface to this, with very few features
for running on the machine itself.
  You optionally provide a featurefull front end, to be linked
either on the router/whatever if space permits, or via fpc from
a dumb unix box.
  You write an X front-end that uses **the dumb line-at-a-time interface**
do the operations from a remote location.  A good example is xmh...
X does the pretty stuff, mh does the work.

--dave (Multics bigot!) c-b