My 2 cents (based in the YAML format):
============================
server:
port : 80
port_tls : 443
timeout : 60
pid_file : /var/run/cherokee.pid
vserver:
default:
document_root: /tmp
/:
handler : file
/tmp:
handler : common
document_root : /var/tmp
www.example.com:
document_root: /tmp
============================
Took out a nesting level in the directory, I think there's no need to
tell the conf it is a directory, it starts with a / (directory sign)
after all.
On 1/17/07, Masaru Yamabashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really doesn't understand the point, what's the problem with traditional
> file formats like previous cherokee file format, unix-like formats or even
> INI file format?
> I don't find a great problem with current 0.6 file format neither unless
> poor human usage due to extension and redundance, I mean it is always better
> to write things like:
>
> server:
> port= 80
> timeout= 100
>
> rather than:
>
> server!port=80
> server!timeout=100
>
> if you have 50 attributes for configuring a server you must write server 50
> times which is unnecessary and weird
>
> the same if you have a lot of terms, something like:
> server!virtual!xxx!handler!php=phpcgi
>
> I vote for tradional attribute=value pair in INI file format which is widely
> used or something like phyton o scheme scripting
>
> Anyway I think there's no time for discussing this for next release
>
>
> >From: Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >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'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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cherokee mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
>
--
________________
Jorge A Gallegos
-kad-
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
[email protected]
http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
