You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ponymail.apache.org by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> on 2017/05/01 17:35:05 UTC
Change UI config to yaml?
While having a cup of coffee on the balcony, I got to thinking - would
it make sense for us to convert the PM UI configuration to yaml instead
of a .lua file? It should make it less arcane to edit for non-techies.
The config could be something like this:
# ElasticSearch settings
database:
host: "http://localhost:9200/"
db: "ponymail"
secure: false
# Outgoing email settings
smtp:
host: "localhost:25"
accepted_domains:
- "apache.org"
- "*.apache.org"
# User Interface settings
ui:
wordcloud: false
slow_count: true
etc etc :)
thoughts?
With regards,
Daniel.
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 01/05/2017 19:35, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> While having a cup of coffee on the balcony, I got to thinking - would
> it make sense for us to convert the PM UI configuration to yaml instead
> of a .lua file? It should make it less arcane to edit for non-techies.
>
> The config could be something like this:
>
> # ElasticSearch settings
> database:
> host: "http://localhost:9200/"
> db: "ponymail"
> secure: false
>
> # Outgoing email settings
> smtp:
> host: "localhost:25"
> accepted_domains:
> - "apache.org"
> - "*.apache.org"
>
> # User Interface settings
> ui:
> wordcloud: false
> slow_count: true
>
> etc etc :)
>
> thoughts?
Sounds like a sound improvement, +1
Thanks.
Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Member at The Apache Software Foundation
Syncope, Cocoon, Olingo, CXF, OpenJPA, PonyMail
http://home.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Ulises <ul...@gmail.com>.
You still got my +1 on yaml.
I'm wondering about conflating all config files into a huge file. I also
wonder about many files, with no evident/apparent structure between files,
all scattered around. I suspect I'd lean towards
single-file-with-everything if I had to choose today.
U
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 at 12:09 Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> So, I know I'm not terribly active here, but as someone who has tried to
> sell PonyMail to my sysadmins at work ... a HUGE yes to this one. Having
> configuration in Lua makes sysadmins turn up their nose at Pony without
> ever seriously considering it. yaml is a giant leap forward in terms of
> selling it to anybody who has to maintain an instance. The less weird
> stuff there is, the easier it is to get it deployed in the real world.
>
> +1
>
>
>
> On 06/21/2017 12:46 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> > I'm gonna broach this subject again, but with a twist:
> >
> > Why not consolidate the two config files into one for a later release
> > (after the upcoming 0.10)?
> > It would ease the issue of having to maintain the config (only one to
> > change if you decide to change ES settings etc).
> >
> > I'm still in the yaml camp on this - I don't think the compiler error
> > argument stacks up. You can just as well do a typo in Lua that won't be
> > spotted as you can do one in yaml. They both have syntax that needs to
> > be followed, and both allow for humans to enter the wrong thing in the
> > right syntax.
> >
> > Yaml is understood by just about any language, both Lua and Python,
> > though I would wait till there's a Python rewrite of the Lua scripts
> > before we start switching to a unified config (we could have a simple
> > converter for older installations).
> >
> > I have been toying with a unified yaml for a while, and to me it works
> > great. There is currently nothing in the Lua part (or any python
> > rewrite) that would require the config to contain actual code, thus
> > nothing preventing a switch.
> >
> > TL;DR: Let's consolidate all the configs into one ponymail.yaml file
> > with all the stuff needed. Then you'd only have to edit one file when
> > you want to update your configuration.
> >
> > WDYT? This is merely a discussion on whether people think this is a
> > viable goal, we can discuss the actual design of the file later on, if
> > there's a majority in favor of this.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel.
> >
>
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>
>
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
So, I know I'm not terribly active here, but as someone who has tried to
sell PonyMail to my sysadmins at work ... a HUGE yes to this one. Having
configuration in Lua makes sysadmins turn up their nose at Pony without
ever seriously considering it. yaml is a giant leap forward in terms of
selling it to anybody who has to maintain an instance. The less weird
stuff there is, the easier it is to get it deployed in the real world.
+1
On 06/21/2017 12:46 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> I'm gonna broach this subject again, but with a twist:
>
> Why not consolidate the two config files into one for a later release
> (after the upcoming 0.10)?
> It would ease the issue of having to maintain the config (only one to
> change if you decide to change ES settings etc).
>
> I'm still in the yaml camp on this - I don't think the compiler error
> argument stacks up. You can just as well do a typo in Lua that won't be
> spotted as you can do one in yaml. They both have syntax that needs to
> be followed, and both allow for humans to enter the wrong thing in the
> right syntax.
>
> Yaml is understood by just about any language, both Lua and Python,
> though I would wait till there's a Python rewrite of the Lua scripts
> before we start switching to a unified config (we could have a simple
> converter for older installations).
>
> I have been toying with a unified yaml for a while, and to me it works
> great. There is currently nothing in the Lua part (or any python
> rewrite) that would require the config to contain actual code, thus
> nothing preventing a switch.
>
> TL;DR: Let's consolidate all the configs into one ponymail.yaml file
> with all the stuff needed. Then you'd only have to edit one file when
> you want to update your configuration.
>
> WDYT? This is merely a discussion on whether people think this is a
> viable goal, we can discuss the actual design of the file later on, if
> there's a majority in favor of this.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 06/21/2017 05:25 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 21 June 2017 at 16:01, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 06/21/2017 04:09 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 21 June 2017 at 11:46, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I'm gonna broach this subject again, but with a twist:
>>>>
>>>> Why not consolidate the two config files into one for a later release
>>>> (after the upcoming 0.10)?
>>>
>>> Which two config files?
>>>
>>> I think there are at least 3:
>>>
>>> site/api/lib/config.lua
>>> site/js/config.js
>>> tools/ponymail.cfg
>>
>> This would be config.lua + ponymail.cfg, the two _server_ configuration
>> scripts. I consider config.js to be a separate UI configuration (IOW it
>> doesn't overlap anywhere with the other two and can also be used without
>> modification).
>>
>> Now...
>> If possible, we could weave config.js into the picture by having that
>> configuration generated from the yaml...that is something to think about
>> :-).
>
> If you are going to generate config files from the yaml then you could
> just as easily generate config.lua from it.
> That would avoid the overhead of requiring yaml to parse the config
> repeatedly on the web server.
I would rather wait and get a python rewrite going. This would allow us
to just parse the yaml at startup (this would be WSGI) and not every
time something runs. The JS config could, if we chose to, be generated
on that startup, thus changing the yaml and reloading the WSGI would
recreate the config.js file.
I don't have immediate plans to consolidate this while we still use Lua.
I think moving to Python completely (and adopting the yaml practice
there) is more attractive and important for growing a bigger community.
So to recap, this would not be a change in 0.10 and possibly not 0.11
either, but once we had a python version of the API.
I have a proposal in mind (and on disk), but due to travels (and my
inability to work efficiently on a laptop), I don't think I'll be able
to hand it over till August.
With regards,
Daniel.
>
>> With regards,
>> Daniel.
>>
>>>
>>>> It would ease the issue of having to maintain the config (only one to
>>>> change if you decide to change ES settings etc).
>>>>
>>>> I'm still in the yaml camp on this - I don't think the compiler error
>>>> argument stacks up. You can just as well do a typo in Lua that won't be
>>>> spotted as you can do one in yaml. They both have syntax that needs to
>>>> be followed, and both allow for humans to enter the wrong thing in the
>>>> right syntax.
>>>>
>>>> Yaml is understood by just about any language, both Lua and Python,
>>>> though I would wait till there's a Python rewrite of the Lua scripts
>>>> before we start switching to a unified config (we could have a simple
>>>> converter for older installations).
>>>>
>>>> I have been toying with a unified yaml for a while, and to me it works
>>>> great. There is currently nothing in the Lua part (or any python
>>>> rewrite) that would require the config to contain actual code, thus
>>>> nothing preventing a switch.
>>>>
>>>> TL;DR: Let's consolidate all the configs into one ponymail.yaml file
>>>> with all the stuff needed. Then you'd only have to edit one file when
>>>> you want to update your configuration.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT? This is merely a discussion on whether people think this is a
>>>> viable goal, we can discuss the actual design of the file later on, if
>>>> there's a majority in favor of this.
>>>>
>>>> With regards,
>>>> Daniel.
>>
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 21 June 2017 at 16:01, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:09 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 21 June 2017 at 11:46, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I'm gonna broach this subject again, but with a twist:
>>>
>>> Why not consolidate the two config files into one for a later release
>>> (after the upcoming 0.10)?
>>
>> Which two config files?
>>
>> I think there are at least 3:
>>
>> site/api/lib/config.lua
>> site/js/config.js
>> tools/ponymail.cfg
>
> This would be config.lua + ponymail.cfg, the two _server_ configuration
> scripts. I consider config.js to be a separate UI configuration (IOW it
> doesn't overlap anywhere with the other two and can also be used without
> modification).
>
> Now...
> If possible, we could weave config.js into the picture by having that
> configuration generated from the yaml...that is something to think about
> :-).
If you are going to generate config files from the yaml then you could
just as easily generate config.lua from it.
That would avoid the overhead of requiring yaml to parse the config
repeatedly on the web server.
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>>
>>> It would ease the issue of having to maintain the config (only one to
>>> change if you decide to change ES settings etc).
>>>
>>> I'm still in the yaml camp on this - I don't think the compiler error
>>> argument stacks up. You can just as well do a typo in Lua that won't be
>>> spotted as you can do one in yaml. They both have syntax that needs to
>>> be followed, and both allow for humans to enter the wrong thing in the
>>> right syntax.
>>>
>>> Yaml is understood by just about any language, both Lua and Python,
>>> though I would wait till there's a Python rewrite of the Lua scripts
>>> before we start switching to a unified config (we could have a simple
>>> converter for older installations).
>>>
>>> I have been toying with a unified yaml for a while, and to me it works
>>> great. There is currently nothing in the Lua part (or any python
>>> rewrite) that would require the config to contain actual code, thus
>>> nothing preventing a switch.
>>>
>>> TL;DR: Let's consolidate all the configs into one ponymail.yaml file
>>> with all the stuff needed. Then you'd only have to edit one file when
>>> you want to update your configuration.
>>>
>>> WDYT? This is merely a discussion on whether people think this is a
>>> viable goal, we can discuss the actual design of the file later on, if
>>> there's a majority in favor of this.
>>>
>>> With regards,
>>> Daniel.
>
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 06/21/2017 04:09 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 21 June 2017 at 11:46, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'm gonna broach this subject again, but with a twist:
>>
>> Why not consolidate the two config files into one for a later release
>> (after the upcoming 0.10)?
>
> Which two config files?
>
> I think there are at least 3:
>
> site/api/lib/config.lua
> site/js/config.js
> tools/ponymail.cfg
This would be config.lua + ponymail.cfg, the two _server_ configuration
scripts. I consider config.js to be a separate UI configuration (IOW it
doesn't overlap anywhere with the other two and can also be used without
modification).
Now...
If possible, we could weave config.js into the picture by having that
configuration generated from the yaml...that is something to think about
:-).
With regards,
Daniel.
>
>> It would ease the issue of having to maintain the config (only one to
>> change if you decide to change ES settings etc).
>>
>> I'm still in the yaml camp on this - I don't think the compiler error
>> argument stacks up. You can just as well do a typo in Lua that won't be
>> spotted as you can do one in yaml. They both have syntax that needs to
>> be followed, and both allow for humans to enter the wrong thing in the
>> right syntax.
>>
>> Yaml is understood by just about any language, both Lua and Python,
>> though I would wait till there's a Python rewrite of the Lua scripts
>> before we start switching to a unified config (we could have a simple
>> converter for older installations).
>>
>> I have been toying with a unified yaml for a while, and to me it works
>> great. There is currently nothing in the Lua part (or any python
>> rewrite) that would require the config to contain actual code, thus
>> nothing preventing a switch.
>>
>> TL;DR: Let's consolidate all the configs into one ponymail.yaml file
>> with all the stuff needed. Then you'd only have to edit one file when
>> you want to update your configuration.
>>
>> WDYT? This is merely a discussion on whether people think this is a
>> viable goal, we can discuss the actual design of the file later on, if
>> there's a majority in favor of this.
>>
>> With regards,
>> Daniel.
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 21 June 2017 at 11:46, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm gonna broach this subject again, but with a twist:
>
> Why not consolidate the two config files into one for a later release
> (after the upcoming 0.10)?
Which two config files?
I think there are at least 3:
site/api/lib/config.lua
site/js/config.js
tools/ponymail.cfg
> It would ease the issue of having to maintain the config (only one to
> change if you decide to change ES settings etc).
>
> I'm still in the yaml camp on this - I don't think the compiler error
> argument stacks up. You can just as well do a typo in Lua that won't be
> spotted as you can do one in yaml. They both have syntax that needs to
> be followed, and both allow for humans to enter the wrong thing in the
> right syntax.
>
> Yaml is understood by just about any language, both Lua and Python,
> though I would wait till there's a Python rewrite of the Lua scripts
> before we start switching to a unified config (we could have a simple
> converter for older installations).
>
> I have been toying with a unified yaml for a while, and to me it works
> great. There is currently nothing in the Lua part (or any python
> rewrite) that would require the config to contain actual code, thus
> nothing preventing a switch.
>
> TL;DR: Let's consolidate all the configs into one ponymail.yaml file
> with all the stuff needed. Then you'd only have to edit one file when
> you want to update your configuration.
>
> WDYT? This is merely a discussion on whether people think this is a
> viable goal, we can discuss the actual design of the file later on, if
> there's a majority in favor of this.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
I'm gonna broach this subject again, but with a twist:
Why not consolidate the two config files into one for a later release
(after the upcoming 0.10)?
It would ease the issue of having to maintain the config (only one to
change if you decide to change ES settings etc).
I'm still in the yaml camp on this - I don't think the compiler error
argument stacks up. You can just as well do a typo in Lua that won't be
spotted as you can do one in yaml. They both have syntax that needs to
be followed, and both allow for humans to enter the wrong thing in the
right syntax.
Yaml is understood by just about any language, both Lua and Python,
though I would wait till there's a Python rewrite of the Lua scripts
before we start switching to a unified config (we could have a simple
converter for older installations).
I have been toying with a unified yaml for a while, and to me it works
great. There is currently nothing in the Lua part (or any python
rewrite) that would require the config to contain actual code, thus
nothing preventing a switch.
TL;DR: Let's consolidate all the configs into one ponymail.yaml file
with all the stuff needed. Then you'd only have to edit one file when
you want to update your configuration.
WDYT? This is merely a discussion on whether people think this is a
viable goal, we can discuss the actual design of the file later on, if
there's a majority in favor of this.
With regards,
Daniel.
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 May 2017 at 18:15, Ulises <ul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps YAML isn't the format? I know next to no Lua and I'd personally
> welcome being able to configure PM using a 3rd party format.
Have a look at the current format:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-ponymail/blob/master/tools/setup.py#L496
The above config.lua generation code ends at line 525 currently.
This could be enhanced with some more docs, but I think it's readily
understandable without needing to know Lua.
> Having said this I also acknowledge that having config as code is good in
> that you get compilation/interpreter errors if you made a mistake which is
> very nice.
Indeed.
> On Tue, May 2, 2017, 09:59 sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 May 2017 at 13:10, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>> > Daniel Gruno wrote on 5/1/17 1:35 PM:
>> >> While having a cup of coffee on the balcony, I got to thinking - would
>> >> it make sense for us to convert the PM UI configuration to yaml instead
>> >> of a .lua file? It should make it less arcane to edit for non-techies.
>> >
>> > +1. The older I get, the more and more I appreciate systems that store
>> > config data in very clear and easy to process formats. Being able to
>> > change behaviors - or use automated deployment tools - without having to
>> > look into code files is definitely helpful.
>>
>> I contend that the existing format is already pretty simple and easy
>> to understand.
>>
>> It's not much different from a properties file.
>>
>> Whilst YAML has the concept of a hierarchical structure, it's pretty
>> easy to get the layout wrong, but still end up with valid YAML.
>> Unless the code that processes the file does some careful checking, it
>> may result in unexpected settings.
>>
>> > Separately, is there any timeline for UI/theme work in the future?
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > - Shane
>> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>>
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Ulises <ul...@gmail.com>.
Perhaps YAML isn't the format? I know next to no Lua and I'd personally
welcome being able to configure PM using a 3rd party format.
Having said this I also acknowledge that having config as code is good in
that you get compilation/interpreter errors if you made a mistake which is
very nice.
On Tue, May 2, 2017, 09:59 sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 May 2017 at 13:10, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> > Daniel Gruno wrote on 5/1/17 1:35 PM:
> >> While having a cup of coffee on the balcony, I got to thinking - would
> >> it make sense for us to convert the PM UI configuration to yaml instead
> >> of a .lua file? It should make it less arcane to edit for non-techies.
> >
> > +1. The older I get, the more and more I appreciate systems that store
> > config data in very clear and easy to process formats. Being able to
> > change behaviors - or use automated deployment tools - without having to
> > look into code files is definitely helpful.
>
> I contend that the existing format is already pretty simple and easy
> to understand.
>
> It's not much different from a properties file.
>
> Whilst YAML has the concept of a hierarchical structure, it's pretty
> easy to get the layout wrong, but still end up with valid YAML.
> Unless the code that processes the file does some careful checking, it
> may result in unexpected settings.
>
> > Separately, is there any timeline for UI/theme work in the future?
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > - Shane
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 May 2017 at 13:10, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Daniel Gruno wrote on 5/1/17 1:35 PM:
>> While having a cup of coffee on the balcony, I got to thinking - would
>> it make sense for us to convert the PM UI configuration to yaml instead
>> of a .lua file? It should make it less arcane to edit for non-techies.
>
> +1. The older I get, the more and more I appreciate systems that store
> config data in very clear and easy to process formats. Being able to
> change behaviors - or use automated deployment tools - without having to
> look into code files is definitely helpful.
I contend that the existing format is already pretty simple and easy
to understand.
It's not much different from a properties file.
Whilst YAML has the concept of a hierarchical structure, it's pretty
easy to get the layout wrong, but still end up with valid YAML.
Unless the code that processes the file does some careful checking, it
may result in unexpected settings.
> Separately, is there any timeline for UI/theme work in the future?
>
>
> --
>
> - Shane
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 05/02/2017 02:10 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Daniel Gruno wrote on 5/1/17 1:35 PM:
>> While having a cup of coffee on the balcony, I got to thinking - would
>> it make sense for us to convert the PM UI configuration to yaml instead
>> of a .lua file? It should make it less arcane to edit for non-techies.
>
> +1. The older I get, the more and more I appreciate systems that store
> config data in very clear and easy to process formats. Being able to
> change behaviors - or use automated deployment tools - without having to
> look into code files is definitely helpful.
>
> Separately, is there any timeline for UI/theme work in the future?
>
>
I'm working on the coffee-and-cake branch as we speak (I haven't pushed
it yet though), but it's going to take quiiiite a while - it's a
complete rewrite of all the javascript.
I might have something to demo at ApacheCon :)
With regards,
Daniel.
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Daniel Gruno wrote on 5/1/17 1:35 PM:
> While having a cup of coffee on the balcony, I got to thinking - would
> it make sense for us to convert the PM UI configuration to yaml instead
> of a .lua file? It should make it less arcane to edit for non-techies.
+1. The older I get, the more and more I appreciate systems that store
config data in very clear and easy to process formats. Being able to
change behaviors - or use automated deployment tools - without having to
look into code files is definitely helpful.
Separately, is there any timeline for UI/theme work in the future?
--
- Shane
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 05/02/2017 12:03 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 1 May 2017 at 18:40, Ulises <ul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not just for not technically minded people (and techies too) but also
>> easier (possibly) to handle during automated deployments.
>
> How so?
I'm not Ulises, but I'd think some of the reasoning is that most config
management today is centered around yaml - so going from yaml (in cfg
mgmt) to yaml (in PM) would be easier than trying to convert to a custom
lua script.
>
>> You got my +1 here.
>>
>> U
>>
>> On Mon, May 1, 2017, 12:35 Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> While having a cup of coffee on the balcony, I got to thinking - would
>>> it make sense for us to convert the PM UI configuration to yaml instead
>>> of a .lua file? It should make it less arcane to edit for non-techies.
>>>
>>> The config could be something like this:
>>>
>>> # ElasticSearch settings
>>> database:
>>> host: "http://localhost:9200/"
>>> db: "ponymail"
>>> secure: false
>>>
>>> # Outgoing email settings
>>> smtp:
>>> host: "localhost:25"
>>> accepted_domains:
>>> - "apache.org"
>>> - "*.apache.org"
>>>
>>> # User Interface settings
>>> ui:
>>> wordcloud: false
>>> slow_count: true
>>>
>>> etc etc :)
>>>
>>> thoughts?
>
> Is that really easier for the non-techie?
> Besides, I don't think a non-techie should change anything in that file.
>
> Also it would require adding a YAML processor purely to read a single
> config file.
>
> -1
>
> If the file really is tricky to edit as it stands, then better
> documentation is the answer.
>
>>> With regards,
>>> Daniel.
>>>
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 1 May 2017 at 18:40, Ulises <ul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not just for not technically minded people (and techies too) but also
> easier (possibly) to handle during automated deployments.
How so?
> You got my +1 here.
>
> U
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2017, 12:35 Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> While having a cup of coffee on the balcony, I got to thinking - would
>> it make sense for us to convert the PM UI configuration to yaml instead
>> of a .lua file? It should make it less arcane to edit for non-techies.
>>
>> The config could be something like this:
>>
>> # ElasticSearch settings
>> database:
>> host: "http://localhost:9200/"
>> db: "ponymail"
>> secure: false
>>
>> # Outgoing email settings
>> smtp:
>> host: "localhost:25"
>> accepted_domains:
>> - "apache.org"
>> - "*.apache.org"
>>
>> # User Interface settings
>> ui:
>> wordcloud: false
>> slow_count: true
>>
>> etc etc :)
>>
>> thoughts?
Is that really easier for the non-techie?
Besides, I don't think a non-techie should change anything in that file.
Also it would require adding a YAML processor purely to read a single
config file.
-1
If the file really is tricky to edit as it stands, then better
documentation is the answer.
>> With regards,
>> Daniel.
>>
Re: Change UI config to yaml?
Posted by Ulises <ul...@gmail.com>.
Not just for not technically minded people (and techies too) but also
easier (possibly) to handle during automated deployments.
You got my +1 here.
U
On Mon, May 1, 2017, 12:35 Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> While having a cup of coffee on the balcony, I got to thinking - would
> it make sense for us to convert the PM UI configuration to yaml instead
> of a .lua file? It should make it less arcane to edit for non-techies.
>
> The config could be something like this:
>
> # ElasticSearch settings
> database:
> host: "http://localhost:9200/"
> db: "ponymail"
> secure: false
>
> # Outgoing email settings
> smtp:
> host: "localhost:25"
> accepted_domains:
> - "apache.org"
> - "*.apache.org"
>
> # User Interface settings
> ui:
> wordcloud: false
> slow_count: true
>
> etc etc :)
>
> thoughts?
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>