couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel Yokomizo" <daniel.yokom...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: server configuration stuff
Date Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:56:35 GMT
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Damien Katz <damienkatz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Daniel Yokomizo wrote:
>
> > A couple of thoughts.
> >
> > 1. Why not use the usual Erlang approach for code update, using the
> > loop for receiving messages and handling config updates, it seems
> > cleaner and a better fit. This way you need only a single process to
> > handle the config file format and notify the rest.
> >
> >
>
>  That's pretty much what I was describing. By registering a callback with
> the config module, you can send yourself a message when a relevant change
> takes effect, then act on it.


I didn't understood correctly what you wrote. The idea of  "the
modules registering a callback function" seemed odd to me, but now I
see that we are essentially saying the same thing. For more details
see my response to Jan, but I think we agree with each other.


> > 2. Also it would be simpler to have almost every config inside a
> > CouchDB database, so you startup using the default config and the
> > config process reads the database for the real config info and
> > notifies the other modules of the actual values. With this in place
> > it'll be easier to have other config formats in the future: just make
> > some module that understands format foo and writes/reads it to/from
> > couchdb. The config process will see the changes and propagate them.
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> > IME it's better to keep config files away from the core of some
> > application and let some external agent interpret the files and
> > configure the application using an api.
> >
>
>  Interesting.

Best regards,
Daniel Yokomizo.

Mime
View raw message