On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 10:23:40AM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote: > I am in total agreement in fact my guess would be that most > organizations will eventually split up the httpd.conf file to fit > whatever needs they have. But I would imagine that no two organizations > split up the .conf file in the same way. So splitting it up and > installing it in the way that the ASF likes it, just seems more > confusing than helpful. But like Joshua said, "If you can suggest a > better compromise solution, I am very interested", I don't have a > better suggestion yet so I will have to think about it some more.
Well, from a more basic HCI level, the monolithic httpd.conf is extremely difficult to grok for those just being introduced, even for otherwise seasoned unix admins. It's way too long and with way too many directives for which it is unclear how they are related. (I've taken to writing modules, e.g. mod_foo with directives that are all a part of the same namespace, e.g. FooSomething, FooOther) I support Joshua in that httpd.conf should be as simple as possible to minimally obtain the same functionality offered by simple web servers: the ability to server files from disk and handle mime-types; the barrier to entry to set up a basic, simple, and secure Apache should be no more difficult than setting up thttpd, boa, mathopd, etc. And by secure, I mean that the admin should understand the features that he or she is enabling, not just throwing in a magic incantation of line-noise directives, a la sendmail.cf. Of course, commented examples on how to add available features should be present in other files. Still, most people should have a config file that is less than 100 lines, not in excess of 1000 lines. Cheers, Glenn
