httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: [PATCH] PR #6397
Date Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:52:36 GMT

Okay.  Like I said, I'm not going to stand in the way.  Feel free to
commit.  :-)

Ryan

On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> The format of the files is pretty much immaterial. It's whether
> the config parser front-end is directory aware and will
> dive in :)
> 
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > It should be almost the exact same change in 2.0 as it is in 1.3.  I just
> > know that we keep talking about changing our config system to an XML
> > system, and I want to make sure we keep it possible to easily change
> > config systems.
> > 
> > Ryan
> > 
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, David Reid wrote:
> > 
> > > In some ways I agree, but the method that the patch adds is one most admins
> > > already know and use (certainly within the unix world) so it's not a huge
> > > leap and is comfortingly familiar, whereas include directives aren't always
> > > that obvious...
> > > 
> > > How much more complex would it make 2.0?  I know the config system is
> > > different...
> > > 
> > > Just a quick 2p...
> > > 
> > > david
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <rbb@covalent.net>
> > > To: "Apache (new-httpd)" <new-httpd@apache.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 10:27 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR #6397
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, David Reid wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Seems like a logical extension.  Do we want to do this for 1.3 though?
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for 2.0
> > > > > +0 for 1.3
> > > > >
> > > > > david
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here's my suggested patch for PR #6397. It's a bit more in keeping
> > > with
> > > > > > current coding, and maybe a bit more vocal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Index: src/CHANGES
> > > > > > ===================================================================
> > > > > > RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/CHANGES,v
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________________________
> > > ___
> > > > Ryan Bloom                        rbb@apache.org
> > > > 406 29th St.
> > > > San Francisco, CA 94131
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________________________________________
> > Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
> > 406 29th St.
> > San Francisco, CA 94131
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ===========================================================================
>    Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
>                 "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"
> 


_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message