On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 10:59:04AM +0200, Ilja Booij wrote: > > 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). > Caching -- check every 600 seconds and that will allow a small grace period.
> For sure, it's not the UNIX-way. It should be possible to make the > setup using the config-file for simpler setups. > It has some advantages if you want to be able to manage many dbmail servers at one given point, tho for most people none is gained. Dan > Ilja
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
