httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <>
Subject Re: simple-conf branch
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:45:24 GMT
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:27PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>At 09:37 AM 4/4/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>>>+1 to Greg's comment, I also think that for a new users, having a bunch of little
.conf files will be more confusing.  For experienced users, they will split up the .conf file
however they see fit anyway.  So it doesn't really matter.
>>With all due respect, if we break this into 'logical' groups,
>>I believe it will make it easier for the new user to learn each
>>group of features, one .conf fragment at a time.
>>Most 'cookbooks' are organized this way, and it turns out to be
>>a great method of teaching.
> Sorry, but I very much disagree. I think back to the old days of
> access.conf, httpd.conf, and srm.conf. As an administrator, I absolutely
> detested that layout. I could NEVER figure out which file a given
> configuration was in. I always had to search, then edit.
> We've been to the "multiple .conf world" before. It sucked. We pulled
> everything back into a single .conf to get the hell outta there.
> Small examples are fine. The default configuration should remain as a
> single .conf file.

Which should be almost entirely empty.


"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

View raw message