Delivery delay has been awful today.... > Over a year ago I was tasked with designing a limited GUI for Apache > as part of Digital's Internet AlphaServer project. We used a separate > management port for administration tasks. This made for a simpler > security implimentation and an overall, more stable enviroment.
Was the config server a separate process? > I also strongly agree with Matthew that we should retain the current, > human readable configuration files. In an environment where changes > happen frequently and in wholesale lots (like a large ISP), the GUI > can get in the way of efficient server maintenance. In these environ- > ments, an editor or a specialized tool is a much faster way to main- > tain users on the system. As an alternative to retaining the current > configuration file structure, provide an API to support configuration > changes. I don't think there is any danger of the flat file going away. However, the syntax of the files will likely change in 2.0. > If there is a real nead for an alternative storage format for config- > uration information, I would recommend LDAP. This, at the least, should > be supported for user authentication (yes, I know that there is a > module for it). > > Randy, thanks for starting up this list. This is an area (one of the > very few) where Apache has been lacking. Credit should go to the Apache group as a whole. We are interested in making this a reality and think that communication with those who have decided to tackle this project A Good Thing. There are many Apache group members present on this list.
