Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-18 Thread Ben Laurie
Greg Stein wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:27PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 09:37 AM 4/4/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote: +1 to Greg's comment, I also think that for a new users, having a bunch of little .conf files will be more confusing. For experienced users, they will split up the .co

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-06 Thread Rici Lake
On 6-Apr-05, at 11:43 AM, Phil Lello wrote: As part of this, it could be useful to generate a ‘RunningConfig.cnf’ file as part httpd startup, which would be a merged config file with comments indicating which file set the option (and possibly which options have taken defaults). You can get easil

RE: simple-conf branch

2005-04-06 Thread Phil Lello
As part of this, it could be useful to generate a ‘RunningConfig.cnf’ file as part httpd startup, which would be a merged config file with comments indicating which file set the option (and possibly which options have taken defaults).   This would hopefully reduce problems with conflictin

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-05 Thread Dan Udey
What makes matters worse is that the update-apache2-script that apache2 comes with in Debian doesn't seem to work in any situation I've tried it in (or maybe I'm just not using it right), rendering the entire configuration confusing for no substantial reason. That being said, the idea behind the D

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-05 Thread Rich Bowen
Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:38:44AM -0400, Paul A. Houle wrote: > >>... >> There are good operational reasons to split up configuration in >> different files -- if the Apache install can encourage good practices, >> >>based on the decade of experience we've had w

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-05 Thread Greg Stein
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:38:44AM -0400, Paul A. Houle wrote: >... > There are good operational reasons to split up configuration in > different files -- if the Apache install can encourage good practices, > > based on the decade of experience we've had with it, that's a good th

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-05 Thread Jim Jagielski
Admittedly, there are times when having multiple conf files and conf directories makes things much easier. Other time, more difficult. But that is a SysAdmin decision. We should keep with one-true config file for defaults.

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-05 Thread Paul A. Houle
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:01:34 -0700, Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sorry, but I very much disagree. I think back to the old days of access.conf, httpd.conf, and srm.conf. As an administrator, I absolutely detested that layout. I could NEVER figure out which file a given configuration was in.

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-05 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Apr 4, 2005 2:33 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --On Monday, April 4, 2005 1:21 PM -0400 Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > fairly common to have two web server instances using same ServerRoot; > > that's another case to use LockFile, so that difference instance

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-04 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:01:34PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > Sorry, but I very much disagree. I think back to the old days of > access.conf, httpd.conf, and srm.conf. As an administrator, I absolutely > detested that layout. I could NEVER figure out which file a given > configuration was in. I alw

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-04 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:27PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 09:37 AM 4/4/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote: > >+1 to Greg's comment, I also think that for a new users, having a bunch of > >little .conf files will be more confusing. For experienced users, they will > >split up the .conf fi

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-04 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 09:37 AM 4/4/2005, Brad Nicholes wrote: >+1 to Greg's comment, I also think that for a new users, having a bunch of >little .conf files will be more confusing. For experienced users, they will >split up the .conf file however they see fit anyway. So it doesn't really >matter. With all due

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-04 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On Monday, April 4, 2005 1:21 PM -0400 Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: fairly common to have two web server instances using same ServerRoot; that's another case to use LockFile, so that difference instances use different lock... no big deal with fcntl, big deal with flock... I ended up

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-04 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Apr 4, 2005 1:13 PM, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > Do we really need LockFile, ScoreBoardFile? > > LockFile is needed if people put ServerRoot on NFS, I guess. But > perhaps just a comment to that effect would suffice. fairly common to have two web

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-04 Thread Joshua Slive
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Do we really need LockFile, ScoreBoardFile? LockFile is needed if people put ServerRoot on NFS, I guess. But perhaps just a comment to that effect would suffice. Do we really need PidFile? The MPMs default to: #define DEFAULT_PIDLOG DEFAULT_REL_RUNTIMEDIR "/httpd.pid" W

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-04 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On Saturday, April 2, 2005 2:58 PM -0500 Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you have suggestions for the implementation, speak up or just commit away on the branch. Thanks for taking this on. Here are some things I would like to see done on this branch. Feel free to jump in. 1. Fix "ma

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-04 Thread Joshua Slive
Brad Nicholes wrote: +1 to Greg's comment, I also think that for a new users, having a bunch of little .conf files will be more confusing. For experienced users, they will split up the .conf file however they see fit anyway. So it doesn't really matter. http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-04 Thread Brad Nicholes
+1 to Greg's comment, I also think that for a new users, having a bunch of little .conf files will be more confusing. For experienced users, they will split up the .conf file however they see fit anyway. So it doesn't really matter. Brad >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, April 03, 2005 1:33:06 A

Re: simple-conf branch

2005-04-03 Thread Greg Stein
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 02:58:26PM -0500, Joshua Slive wrote: > Please take a look at > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/simple-conf/docs/conf/ > > This is my long-threatened project to massively simplify the basic > httpd.conf by splitting a bunch of stuff out into smaller fi

simple-conf branch

2005-04-02 Thread Joshua Slive
Please take a look at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/simple-conf/docs/conf/ This is my long-threatened project to massively simplify the basic httpd.conf by splitting a bunch of stuff out into smaller files in the extra/ directory that are not included by default. I believe