[freeside-devel] canceling an single service

ivan ivan at 420.am
Wed May 22 06:08:25 PDT 2002


I'm skeptical.

I don't want to support an API at that level, especially at this level of
immaturity.  Consider it an internal communication protocol for now.

I would like to have a reasonable customer GUI working first, and have
some idea of what's needed in the API, before making it something people
will write multiple frontends against. 

I suggest that the interface documented in FS::SignupClient /
FS::MailAdminClient (or whatever the "unified client" winds up being
named) is a better place for you to build an external interface. 

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 08:41:59AM -0400, Dale Hege wrote:
> 
> I was/am in the process of writing a more featurefull fs_selfadmin. But I
> have a question after looking through the code of fs_signup.
> I understand why the use of storable for communication between the 2
> servers. But (I know freeside is a perl program) ;) I have a need to
> create a PHP frontend for my customers. Trying not to duplicate work is it
> reasonable to think about switching the communication method for thecgi->fs_*d programs to a more universal transfer to allow 3rd party
> frontends in PHP,PERL,Coldfulsion,ASP,Java, etc. One I am interested in
> right now is wddx. What do you think?
> -Dale
> 
> > The old signup server protocol has been rewritten, using the Storable
> > module.  I'm happy with the results - a similar rewrite for
> > fs_selfadmin seems reasonable.
> >
> > Now that the protocol has been rewritten and is extensible, it also
> > might be desirable to consolidate the different "servers"
> > (fs_signup_server, fs_passwd_server, fs_mailadmin_server) and
> > "client-side daemons"
> > (fs_signupd / fs_passwdd / fs_mailadmind) into one version for all
> > functions (fs_client_server and fs_clientd or something like that).
> 
> 
> 

-- 
_ivan



More information about the freeside-devel mailing list