On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:13:15 +0200, Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah Dan, as ever so subtle. I am with you on this one nonetheless. Dbmail > doesn't > need xml at the moment, for two reasons: > > 1) as Dan points out, it ain't broken, and xml formatting the config won't > actually have much added value. Well, actually the current config parser > stands > to be improved. Inline comments for instance are not handled nicely. But that > is > a really minor issue.
Agreed. > > 2) More importantly however, there is discussion about moving major parts of > the > configuration back into the config table in the/a database. Personally I think > that this is even whackier than xml for many reasons. The current filebased > config setup is extremely versatile, and in line with both user expectations > and > unix tradition. Still, if db-based configs is the wave of the future for > dbmail, > much of this discussion will be moot. We'd like the configuration to be in the database for the following reason: We'd like to be able to change the configuration for a daemon on-the-fly, from a remote machine. This could be done by changing the config-file using a terminal-session, but we'd like to be able to do it (read: let our customers do it), in a simpler way. A frontend to some tables in a database would be much simpler then. Mind you, if the above is to be implemented, we still have to find a way of having the daemons use the changed config (and at not bombard the server holding the config with a gazillion of queries every second). For sure, it's not the UNIX-way. It should be possible to make the setup using the config-file for simpler setups. Ilja
