Re: two brief notes on config stuff --- ["Robert S. Thau" ] (fwd)

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

> In reply to Brian Behlendorf who said
> > 
> > 2) Many of the ideas in Richards' proposal --- specificalyly a nested set
> >    of defaults per real server, virtual server, and directory for those things
> >    which it makes sense to set per directory, are already in the current
> >    config structure.  When discussing changes to that structure, it would
> >    be helpful to say how they relate to the current code.
> 
> I realise this but perhaps my example was a little unclear and to be honest
> it was a few hours hacking on a Sunday afternoon and not a rounded out
> proposal, hoever, I don't see a reason to have several different files.
> Why not have a single place for each server where everything is defined,
> including what's in access.conf and srm.conf, with a single structure for
> each server you can have them configured as though they were completely
> distinct.
> 

I agree with your suggestions Paul. I looked at this awhile back
and noted that simply changing the code so that it doesn't require
certain files to exist would be a start. I agree that we need to
*attempt* to maintain compatibility with the old formats, but not
at the expense of our own project.

I would like to start work on a configuration interface more than
likely written in Tk/Perl. This is going to depend on some departure
from the existing format, and would be best served by a separate 
file format.