I know I'm playing with fire now but... XML based config could solve a few of the problems, XML can also be validated.
I have to admit lua would be more flexible but I think most server admins have atleast come into contact with XML... while not necessarily the case with lua. of course a sort of <code lang="lua">some lua config stuff</code> would be possible to if httpd would export some binding glue module for example lua,c,perl,... could be provided so complex configurations can potentially be done in a language the admin is familiar with. puts down the oil and matches and waits for the blaze to start. ~Jorge On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Akins, Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/3/09 2:09 PM, "Joachim Zobel" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This does IMHO not address any of the problems users usually have and >> that are mainly due to a lack of validation. > > First of all, I don't really care about "normal" users, to be honest. Admit > it, I'm not the only one. However, I do know that we can't just break > everything for them. > >> >> See >> http://people.apache.org/~rbowen/presentations/apacheconEU2005/hate_apache.pdf >> for what I consider a good description of the current problems. > > It solves most of the "Missing" page, I think. Also, if the lua doesn't > compile, it's not a valid config. A few of the other points are addressed > by using lua with some "helper" libraries. > > We could ease into this by having modules provide some lua glue for use in > the lua handlers (proxy and cache in particular). > > > > -- > Brian Akins > Chief Operations Engineer > Turner Digital Media Technologies > >
