Eric S. Johansson wrote, On 17/01/07 02:11:
>> I really like having the ability to edit the server configuration
>> file by hand. The current 0.6 configuration syntax is quite
>> honestly and pain in the ass. I also really like the idea of
>> having a web interface to the configuration file for quick edits or
>> more complex integrations. It does mean more code to maintain, but
>> it is already where Cherokee is heading.
>>
>> I looked a little into the YAML stuff. Quite honestly YAML makes
>> me more sick than XML. Perhaps it is just a misconception I have
>> with it or the fact that it is something new to me and I don't want
>> to spend the time to learn it. XML is just too big and bulky (much
>> like Java for me. Maybe that is why those two get along).
>
> I'm in the same camp. I've looked at a third path a.k.a json
> (http://www.json.org/) for other projects and wonder if json had been
> considered.
I've checked Json and Yaml one more time. First of all, I have to
say that I don't like any of them. They try to be easy and user
friendly, but they are quite hard to be handled by hand.
I tried to make my mind up by writing the same configuration example
on each format. Check it out.
First of all, in the current 0.6-proposed format:
========
server!port = 80
server!port_tls = 443
server!timeout = 60
server!pid_file = /var/run/cherokee.pid
vserver!default!document_root = /tmp
vserver!default!directory!/!handler = file
vserver!default!directory!/tmp!handler = common
vserver!default!directory!/tmp!document_root = /var/tmp
vserver!www.example.com!document_root = /tmp
========
With Json notation it's quite painful; even worse than in the
proposed 0.6 format:
========
{
"server": {
"port": 80,
"port_tls": 443,
"timeout": 60
"pid_file": "/var/run/cherokee.pid"
},
"vserver": {
"default": {
"document_root": "/tmp",
"directory": {
"/": {
"handler": "file"
},
"/tmp": {
"handler": "common",
"document_root": "/var/tmp"
}
}
},
"www.example.com": {
"document_root": "/tmp",
}
}
}
========
On Yaml notation it isn't that bad tough. However it's far from
being comfortable:
========
server:
port : 80
port_tls : 443
timeout : 60
pid_file : /var/run/cherokee.pid
vserver:
default:
document_root: /tmp
directory:
/:
handler : file
/tmp:
handler : common
document_root : /var/tmp
www.example.com:
document_root: /tmp
========
You have to try to write it down to realized of unnatural is to
write that "/:" line.
So, any of the proposed formats seem to be the perfect solution.
Whether some of them is better or not would be based on the taste of
each one, I guess.
So far, the only thing I could think of to improve the current 0.6
format is to add some bits of Yaml format. What would you think of
something like this?
========
server:
port = 80
tls_port = 443
timeout = 60
pid_file = /var/run/cherokee.pid
vserver!default:
document_root = /tmp
directory:
/!handler = file
/tmp!handler = common
/tmp!document_root = /var/tmp
vserver!www.example.com:
document_root = /tmp
========
which would be the exactly the same as:
========
server:
port = 80
tls_port = 443
timeout = 60
pid_file = /var/run/cherokee.pid
vserver!default:
document_root = /tmp
directory!/!handler = file
directory!/tmp:
handler = common
document_root = /var/tmp
vserver!www.example.com!document_root = /tmp
========
Basically, we would be adding blocks to the current notation.
However, I'm not sure at all if that's the way.
Thoughts? Ideas? Proposals?
--
Greetings, alo.
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
[email protected]
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
