On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Damien Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Daniel Yokomizo wrote: > > > A couple of thoughts. > > > > 1. Why not use the usual Erlang approach for code update, using the > > loop for receiving messages and handling config updates, it seems > > cleaner and a better fit. This way you need only a single process to > > handle the config file format and notify the rest. > > > > > > That's pretty much what I was describing. By registering a callback with > the config module, you can send yourself a message when a relevant change > takes effect, then act on it.
I didn't understood correctly what you wrote. The idea of "the modules registering a callback function" seemed odd to me, but now I see that we are essentially saying the same thing. For more details see my response to Jan, but I think we agree with each other. > > 2. Also it would be simpler to have almost every config inside a > > CouchDB database, so you startup using the default config and the > > config process reads the database for the real config info and > > notifies the other modules of the actual values. With this in place > > it'll be easier to have other config formats in the future: just make > > some module that understands format foo and writes/reads it to/from > > couchdb. The config process will see the changes and propagate them. > > > > > > > > > > IME it's better to keep config files away from the core of some > > application and let some external agent interpret the files and > > configure the application using an api. > > > > Interesting. Best regards, Daniel Yokomizo.
