📝 Add layers of fotoobo #228
Conversation
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| This is the main entry point for interaction with **fotoobo** when you installed it as an | ||
| application on your system. It acts as a frontend for users and automated tools. At the Moment only |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would use "automation tools" instead of "automated tools"
|
|
||
| This is the main entry point for interaction with **fotoobo** when you installed it as an | ||
| application on your system. It acts as a frontend for users and automated tools. At the Moment only | ||
| the CLI part is implemented. In future version an API may be available if there is a need for it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would be more precise here: "a REST API", because we kinda already have an API, in Python for programmers (the "Business Logic Layer"), but it still is an API too ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, way better than just "API"
| In this lowest level of **fotoobo** we directly interact with the infrastructure, meaning we handle | ||
| the authentication and API calls to the devices like FortiGate, FortiManger and others. The | ||
| interface layer should not directly access this infrastructure layer. Instead there should always | ||
| be a **tool** at the business logic layer which connects these two. No other layer than the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be "a tool in the business logic layer, because "at" usually points to a physical location.
| be a **tool** at the business logic layer which connects these two. No other layer than the | ||
| infrastructure layer should directly access any fortinet device. | ||
|
|
||
| As a module in you own code you may also directly use the infrastructure layer. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Two questions:
- Do we really connect directly from the "Low Level Methods" to the devices? Otherwise I would remove the left "FortiGate". Afaik every method uses the lowest level "Native Methods" to communicate with the respective Endpoints.
- Should we add "FortiManager / ..." to the "FortiGate", because we also communicate with them, this would imho be more clear then.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was meant that only the infrastructure layer connects to the Fortinet systems. The line did not connect the methods boxes directly, but yes, the thick lines were a little misleading. I change them to thin and connect it near to the native methods.
Ans yes, would be nice to also show FortiManger and others.
|
Thanks for your suggestions! |
closes #227