On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:07:37 -0400 Brian Cully <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24-Apr-2009, at 00:39, Nickola Kolev wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:03:40 -0500 > > "Luke-Jr" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> My own personal experience is that all the jabberds are horribly > >> unreliable. I use ejabberd because it has problems the least. > >> But good luck fixing it if it *does* break. :/ > > > > Yeah, {for} example {{if}} something in {{the} config file > > breaks}};, go and {[find]} it through all the brackets, semicolons > > and commas out there. }:] > > Gonna have to disagree with both points here. I like the > config syntax, since it's just erlang. I can put emacs into erlang > mode and get all my normal tools for dealing with syntax errors. > You'll have a much harder time with some custom format if you make a > syntax error. Oh, well. I'm not saying that I dislike ejabberd because of the config syntax - I'm using it on my server, by the way. I'm not using emacs, nor I'm an erlang programmer... but I really do hate to make syntax *bracker* errors and in the log files I only get a *clue* as to where to find it... I'm a mere sysadmin, so bear with me. > Also, debugging and fixing ejabberd is about as simple as it > can get, assuming you know erlang already. You can attach to running > nodes and interactively debug and do hot code loads for fixes. You > cannot do that with any of the other implementations that I know of > and it comes in extremely handy sometimes. Would not like to comment on that. As I said I'm not an erlang programmer, and I'm not usually keen on coding loads of fixes for something I've broken myself by misconfiguration. Nevermind... I've just expressed an opinion. > I'm not ejabberd's biggest fan (as some of you from the > ejabberd list probably already know), but its features and > hackability put it in a class by itself. > > -bjc -- Nickola Kolev <[email protected]>
