On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Ivan F. Martinez wrote: >On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 15:19:34 +0100 >Philipp Specht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >PS> This would break "qmail style" compatibility and would be the first >PS> step to "Courier style" config files. >PS> Do you really believe that's a step in the right direction? :o) >One good advantage of using xinetd is to changing config without stopping and >starting services. >As administrator the use of .conf files is better than having part of configuration >in the xinetd config. >I don't expect the software to use one style, I expect it to be easy to administer, >backup, etc...
I have to agree with both of you. One of the main goals of this project is to have a service that is very easy to configure, but at the same time, it is supposed to blend in naturally with the qmail-style of configuring services. The conf file itself is not qmail-style, but I was hoping that it would be more of a relief than a burden. The IMAP protocol is more complex and I beleive that the number of configuration options will grow beyond what's practical to have on the command line. But I'm open for input here. I could, for instance, allow all conf-settings to be passed on the command line. Since the checkpassword style of authentication is one based on the invokation pipeline, one process executes its first argument, I find it natural to be part of the run and xinetd files. The down side is that xinetd administrators have to send a SIGHUP to xinetd, and daemontools administrators have to "svc -du" the service, every time they change their authentication method. For daemontools administrators this is how it's always been and I beleive that everyone's content with this. Question is - should the conf file itself be completely optional? Andy -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | Nil desperandum
