On Sep 25, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Michael Holzt wrote:
[...]
I don't think it is a good idea to combine the pluginname and the confname
in one field. Imagine a conf plugin which only knows [...]
Use cases please. "Imagine" isn't very convincing.
"plugin specific" configuration is usually done in the config/plugins file and the config system is "global configuration".
[....]
If the plugin name is passed implicitly, it isn't possible for two plugins to access the same configuration.
Yes. Thats because i did not see an need for a plugin to access "foreign"
conf variables. I normally prefer clean separation. Do you have any example
for what this might be useful?
"me",timeout, databytes,
Above all the current system is simple and easy to figure out. We are all about making it easy to develop and experiment with qpsmtpd.
Robert made another plugin configuration system that in some ways is better, in particular it's more flexible. We didn't put it into the main branch because we[1] aren't happy with adding the extra complexity.
There are a lot of issues with per-user configuration, which is why I'm planning a separate API for providing and accessing per-user/domain configuration. I don't think it's right to try solving the needs of that sort of thing by extending the config mechanism.
- ask
[1] at least I. :-)
-- http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/
