On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Can't you just do something like a require() wrapped in
> an eval{}?
well yeah, but that only tells you that you've got an error.
it doesn't tell you precisely what the error is, in language
at the same high level that you use to write your config. it
also only deals with syntactic issues, not validation errors
re config data itself.
> I'm not against an XML config, although I've always been
> happy with perl config files in the past. (I still want
> to see the layered config idea that was discussed
> earlier.) It may be that a CGI implementation would
> need to cache the data with Storable and stat the XML
> files to see if they've changed.
i don't remember the layered config idea. was that on this
list?
