Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:01:34 -0700
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: simple-conf branch
Message-ID: <20050404220134.GC14955@lyra.org>
Mail-Followup-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
References: <s250fcd9.018@sinclair.provo.novell.com>
 <6.2.1.2.2.20050404130215.051861e0@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050404130215.051861e0@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

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.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/