httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] PR #6397
Date Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:46:22 GMT
well, the idea is not having to make _any_ changes to the
main config file at all. You simply add another file to
the directory and HUP the server and that's it. No
edits at all.

Personally, I like the concept very much. True, there are
ways of doing this 3rd party, simply by cat'ing the files
into a new httpd.conf file, but this method is very elegant.

It looked like it would fit in very nicely with 2.0. In fact,
it would be kind of cool to get away from the concept of a
master config file totally and replace it with an Apache
configuration directory (httpd.d). Course, we would need
to make clear that non-Apache conf files (like php.ini)
shouldn't go in there. Maybe a conf layout:

    conf/httpd.d:  Apache config file tree
    conf/misc.d:   misc config file locations
    conf/php.d:    location for php.ini ?

would be a nice way of organizing that tree.

rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> 
> 
> Are we bringing our config system too far?  I'll put on my Dean hat and
> say that this could be done with the existing config system, by just
> adding an INCLUDE directive, and putting another file in the included
> file.  Having spent some time in our config parser, I would prefer to make
> our config system simpler, not more complex.
> 
> I am definately -1 (vote not veto) for 1.3 and -0.5 for 2.0.
> 
> Ryan 
> 

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
                "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"

Mime
View raw message