I thought I should add a couple of comments. There's a lot of this discussion that's basically way beyond me, but welll... :)
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 06:57:24PM -0600, Lynn Avants wrote: > The biggest problem IMHO with a flat-db would be the ability to > hand-edit the file(s). If no comments or description fields are used > it will require a user to locate the variable(s) in the package conf > file(s), then edit them in the 'db' file. I may be wrong, but I don't see any reason why comments would be banned from the flat-db files. I mean it's not that much code needed to recognize a "#" at the beginning of a line...? So as long as we don't complicate matters by allowing in-line comments, it should be fine? --- I like Chad's directory structure idea --- And finally; Given a template system, in which the actual config files are built by reading values from some sort of db and merging those with template data, consider this: Would it make sense to have some sort of 'repeatable section' mechanism? The example I'm thinking of is the interfaces section of dachsteins network.conf, in which there could be *some* variation in the number of instances, between individual LEAF boxes... Could be accomplished by use of <tag></tag> pairs... Just 0.02 $CURRENCY regards, Jon Clausen ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
