httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>
Subject Re: related config directives
Date Tue, 25 Dec 2001 23:10:15 GMT
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 09:40:03AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I thought of another reason to do this in the tree itself.  The point of the config
> tree is to keep the current config in memory.  If you are going to modify the
> config, you need to modify it in the tree.  By doing to work on the tree, you
> get that for free.

I'm confused (it may just be the eggnog :), but aren't we talking about
two different things? There are fatal and non-fatal errors in the config.
We want to give a meaningful message when we discover a fatal error,
but we just want to issue a warning and try to adjust something sane
for non-fatal errors. I can see how fidgeting with absurd settings by
rearranging the order in the tree will make it easier to deal with some
of the non-fatal errors, but doesn't it seem easiest to deal with the
fatal errors all at once after we've got a stable config tree with all
the defaults in place in the tree?

-aaron

Mime
View raw message