a word against web interfaces

[jeff vier]

On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 10:26 +0100, Ben Clewett wrote:
> > web configuration is obviously evil.
> Why 'obviously'?  Web configuration is ideally suited to alterations:
> - Easy to use.

I beg to differ.  I found them to all be a major PITA if I tried to do
anything at all elaborate/complex.

> - Can be used where ftp/telnet access is not possible.

If you're letting web traffic in, why wouldn't you let SSH traffic in?
I, for one, would never let a critical box (like my Nagios servers) have
external incoming web access (and, for that matter, *direct* ssh
access).

> - Does not require a restart to nagios.

What?  Of course it does.  Slapping some random web interface on it
doesn't change its internal functionality.

> - Does not require in depth training about format/layout.
> - On-screen help ensures a flatter learning curve.

As much as Nagios isn't simple, it's not rocket science, either.  And
once you have a few hosts set up, it's quite easy to copy off of
existing entries.  If THAT is too rough for the person trying to make
changes/additions, perhaps you should reconsider allowing them to alter
a mission-critical service.

> - Can make use of CGI controls like CHECKBOX and SELECT to ensure less 
> chance of error.

Not sure why you're labeling them as "CGI controls" when they're just
basic HTML elements, nonetheless I don't think I've ever run into this
where I felt like if I had a GUI on the front end of the configuration
process it would have been avoided.  If I skipped something, it's
because I didn't know the person requesting the addition had intended me
to watch the thing that I skipped.  I would have skipped it either way,
and they still would have looked at the Nagios screen and said "Hey,
could you turn on XXX, too?"

> - A good security model using HTML authentication.

More secure than...what?  FTP and telnet from the outside?  yes.  SSH,
no way.

> I cannot see web configuration as 'obviously' evil, and I would be very 
> interested to know why you feel this way.
>
> I believe this is a huge gain for nagios and will ensure greater 
> acceptance and far less support requests, as well as a far more 
> professional feel to the program.  These are my of course my personal 
> views only. :)

There are third-party packages that deal with this already, and *I*
appreciate that they're not included by default, else I might have the
PHBs a) forcing me to use them or b) trying to make changes themselves
(*shudder*).



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer
Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA
REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND