Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:27PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 09:37 AM 4/4/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote:
+1 to Greg's comment, I also think that for a new users, having a bunch of little .conf files will be more confusing. For experienced users, they will split up the .conf file however they see fit anyway. So it doesn't really matter.
With all due respect, if we break this into 'logical' groups,
I believe it will make it easier for the new user to learn each
group of features, one .conf fragment at a time.
Most 'cookbooks' are organized this way, and it turns out to be
a great method of teaching.
Sorry, but I very much disagree. I think back to the old days of
access.conf, httpd.conf, and srm.conf. As an administrator, I absolutely
detested that layout. I could NEVER figure out which file a given
configuration was in. I always had to search, then edit.
We've been to the "multiple .conf world" before. It sucked. We pulled
everything back into a single .conf to get the hell outta there.
Small examples are fine. The default configuration should remain as a
single .conf file.
Which should be almost entirely empty.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
