Ihor Radchenko wrote: > Bob Proulx writes: > > I am torn. One of the complaints about the longer names is that the > > entire hostname gets to be quite long. I want to avoid thrashing > > everyone changing names too often. I want to avoid needing to support > > multiple parallel services that are almost the same but not. Four of > > those above are web server configurations (currently Nginx) and we > > make heavy use of include files to avoid the copy-paste anti-pattern > > trying to keep the configuration DRY but that also creates a complex > > and confusing spaghetti configuration. After having exposed the > > current URLs I would hate to kill them off changing to a new naming > > strategy. I would hate to keep both of them due to the configuration > > complexity that produces. > > I am wondering what exactly makes those includes complex. Is it the fact > that there will be many small files all over the place?
Yes. There would end up being many very small files with only a few lines in them. There would be a topographical graph of files including files including files including files. What should be a simple file with everything plainly shown would be many files that would all need to be mentally visualized in order to know what the configuration is really like. Which makes me contemplate processing the files to flatten out the includes in a compile step. That seems like a worse situation though. Bob
