On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, brian d foy wrote: > > Apache::ConfigFile suffers from a complete lack of tests and a > > rather clumsy API. Also, it doesn't support quoted strings > > correctly. > > those things should be fixed.
That sounds like a good idea. However, I took a look through the code and decided it was more trouble than it was worth. My module took around 4 hours to write, including docs and tests. I don't think I could have fixed Apache::ConfigFile's many problems so quickly. In particular, coming up with a better API for an existing module tends to be a lengthy process of negotiation. Just because I don't like the current API doesn't mean the author agrees! > > Apache::ConfigParser comes closer to my needs, but contains code > > specific to parsing actual Apache configuration files. > > I would think yours would too, based on the name. perhaps a name that > describes the format instead of an example use is better. I tried to make it obvious that my module deals with the format of the Apache config files rather than with Apache config files themselves. That's why it's called Config::ApacheFormat rather than Config::Apache or Apache::* anything. However, my module is general enough that it should work with real Apache config files. It just doesn't have any of Apache's configuration rules hard-coded in the module like Apache::ConfigParser does. Do you have a better name in mind? I considered Config::Apachesque, but I decided it was too cute. > also, what about the many configuration data modules in Config::* > and ConfigReader::*? some of those handle the block style. My purpose in providing an Apache-format configuration file is to leverage existing expertise among the sys-admins where I work. Another syntax that also supports nested blocks with parameter inheritance would not meet this goal. -sam
