On Mar 1, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 03/01/2010 03:38 PM, Tim Soderstrom wrote: >> Hi All! >> >> I noticed that the 'drizzle' command-line client reads >> /etc/drizzle.cnf but not /etc/drizzled.cnf. That makes sense (in fact >> I updated the Connecting with Drizzle section on Wiki to explain >> this) but since there are still config sections on the dirzzled.cnf >> (namely [drizzled]) is this adding more complexity than is needed? >> Because my drizzle.cnf file has a [drizzle] section in it, but if >> that is all I need, it seems like the two could just share the same >> config file? >> >> I assume there was some reasoning behind this but thought I'd ask the >> question. Besides the list has been too quiet as of late :) > > I'm not sure there is specific reasoning behind this. I don't have a strong > feeling either way, other than not wanting it to read my.cnf. :) > > I'd be just as happy if everything used /etc/drizzle/drizzle.cnf. I am _VERY_ > tempted to remove any implicit support for /etc/drizzle.cnf or > /etc/drizzled.cnf without the /etc/drizzle subdir - but that's sort of a > different question...
I agre that makes sense as well. This would make things useful for being able to add in different plugins and their configs (however that will end up working). I know it doesn't exist in Drizzle at the moment but the idea of being able to include files (like you could do in my.cnf though it was underused I think). For instance I like the idea of having something like: include-config = /etc/drizzle/plugins/*.cnf Or something like that. Just some thoughts... Tim S. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
