Thanks for the feedback. I'll post URLs during the weekend. Of course you'll need to look at it before making decisions, I was simply interested in a first basic opinion.
Concerning mod_define and mod_macro: they are a good fit together. mod_macro gives you the ability to factor out repeating parts of the config, but you have to explicitely call the macros with values. With mod_define you can set the values from the outside using environment variables. That way you can start similar instances with the same configs by setting params values during startup - without the need to copy and patch the config files. Sometime one should fuse the two together, but I had the impression, that the code of mod_macro first needs some reworking to make it fit better into the 2.0/2.2 configuration hooks. Regards, Rainer Nick Kew schrieb: > On Friday 25 August 2006 14:05, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I'm +0 about it, but I agree that I'd like to see >> the package 1st :) >> >> I've never been a fan of mod_define, seeing mod_macro (as >> Jorge seems to think as well) as much more useful... > > Agreed, mod_macro is *the* configuration module:-) > >> check >> out some of my OLD Apache PPTs from the 1st ApacheCons ;) >> My main issue with mod_define is that there always seemed to >> be such potential for issues and conflicts, esp when you >> have rewrite rules, etc... > > The argument in favour is that we do periodically get requests > for variable interpolation in various directives. A general framework > would have some value. But to be really useful, it'll have > to deal with both config-time and request-time interpolation > without confusing the hell out of the lusers. And probably > other issues I haven't thought about. >
