On 8/25/06, Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
the latest version runs quite well, afther some minor tweaks it seems
to compile on mac, win32 and win64 without a problem...
I'm share a config that makes use of mod_macro between my windows and
mac machine atm.
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.
>
--
~Jorge
