On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:17 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I sympathize, but this doesn't reflect the addition of <lua>
blocks...
those blocks can be trivially implemented as a loadable module ;-)
As I grok it, the point would be throw out our ridiculous config
syntax entirely (or at best write a compatibility module or a
converter to the new format) and expose a real config API (hello
providers! *chuckle*) and then build a pure LUA-based config format on
top of that.
I'd be definitely curious to see what would come of that - 'cuz really
it can't be much worse than the garbage we're stuck with now. --
justin
Agreed... historically, of course, that alone has not be
reason enough. I recall many many "discussions", esp with Dean,
about the overhead of folding such a "complex" parser into httpd
compared to having that done externally (m4 anyone? :) ) and
out of process...
