On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Lon Hohberger wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:32 -0500, David Teigland wrote: > > > > > [1] Just to be clear, the meta-configuration idea is where a variety of > > config files can be used to populate a central config-file-agnostic > > respository. A single interface is used by all to read config data from > > the repository. Even if we did this, I don't see what it would give us > > anything. All our existing applications access data that's only specified > > in a single config file anyway, so interchangable back-end files would be > > an unused feature. > > True, it doesn't give _us_ much to be agnostic to what the config file > format looks like. > > However, with different back-ends used to populate the single config > repo at run-time, we then have the ability to not have config files at > all (well, except the meta-config stuff). > > What I mean is: An administrator might like to store the cluster > configuration in an inventory database which isn't local to the cluster > itself (e.g. LDAP, or whatever). This might not be a requirement now, > but that was one of the points of having multiple config back-ends, > IIRC.
That's what I had in mind with the "other?" arrow pointing up at libcmanconf. Multiple back-ends for libcmanconf is one thing (good, simple); multiple back-ends for a meta-configuration database with a meta-API is what I've become skeptical about. _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list Openais@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
