David Boyes <[email protected]> writes: > Rather than scattering configuration around in files, I'd like to see a > configuration daemon that maintained the configurations for the various > pieces. A single command line argument identifying a set of addresses to > contact a config daemon would make this very simple to implement, and the > config daemon could be a simple "connect, id yourself, receive your config, > disconnect" operation. Would make configuration management a lot simpler.
This sounds like a bad idea to me. It adds a lot of complexity in a direction where I don't think we need complexity, and it isn't how pretty much all other UNIX software works. I don't think it's common on Windows either. > If you insist on files, then all configuration should be possible > within the files, and the command line args should be frozen as is for > backward compatibility. The Kerberos file format is as good as any, > although not really friendly for complex parms. Lots of other servers support both configuration files and command-line arguments without trouble. I don't see any reason why we can't. The semantics on UNIX are fairly standard (command-line parameters override the configuration file). It's very convenient to be able to quickly run a binary with a different setting without having to generate a separate configuration file and point the binary in a different place. I think the Kerberos configuration file format would be fine. The current MIT Kerberos API for reading it, on the other hand, is kind of horrible. Is there a better parser out there with a saner API? -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
