On 05/24/2010 07:44 PM, Stewart Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:49:43 -0000, Vijay Samuel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> I'm currently working on refactoring the configuration file processing
>> system using boost:: program_options and I was wondering if it would be
>> preffered to have a single configuration file for all the programs(both
>> client and server) or have induvidual configuration files for each
>> program. Please comment on this.
>
> It should be pluggable, and files be one backend.
>
> Other possible backends:
> - pull from http, ldap, remote database, something else
I should clarify. Right now he's working on the config files for client
programs. Where we've woud up getting with this is:
SYSCONFDIR/drizzle/client.cnf
SYSCONFDIR/drizzle/${program_name}.cnf
~/.drizzle/client.cnf
~/.drizzle/${program_name}.cnf
command line options
With values from entries further down on the list overriding values from
entries higher on the list. I don't think we need pluggable config
sources for, say, drizzleslap. :)
We'll get to processing options for drizzled a little later (small
steps) and yes - there is no reason that system can't be pluggable...
but even with that, drizzled option processing is currently a large
enough bucket of ass that shooting for total WIN in the first pass would
likely not work. So we'll just files/config working sanely first, then
refactor to think about pluggability.
Monty
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
