2009/8/31 Stefan Klingner <[email protected]>: > compatibility to old configuration would be a good feature, but a converter > and code only dedicated to the new configuration without the ballast of old > versions would be better in my opinion. if we integrate it in the code the > day will come when we have a problem to extend peruser, because a mixture > of old and new configuration will be hard to manage with a growing code > base and additional features. I think it can be done without any code duplication, what's I'm planing to do is to move the code defining a processor from config parsing function to create_processor(name,chroot,user,cgroup,ect) old processor whould call it without cgroups and with some static user/group/chroot mapping to name ie. name whould be "user:group:chroot", server env can search for this if it has 2 arguments
> > what do you think about creating a converter script? this won't do for us we have multiple config generators on multiple machines, changing that takes time and I wan't to check if those freebsd patches solves the memory corruption before moving to apache 2.2 and dcx _______________________________________________ Peruser mailing list [email protected] http://www.telana.com/mailman/listinfo/peruser
