On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:05:31 +0100 m...@mnet-online.de wrote: > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > as you might have seen more and more FSO 2.0 subsystems are ready for > > prime time, so we have to think about how configuration works for FSO > > 2.0. Until now I used the same method as in FSO 1.0, which is having it > > lumped all together in one config file. For FSO 2.0 I'm leaning towards > > changing this. The benefit I see from one configuration file per > > subsystem is: > > > *) promoting the fine granular usage of individual FSO subsystems, > > *) enable packagers to ship the config with the subsystem, if they want, > > *) a third reason which i forgot while writing this mail. > > > What do you think? > Me for one would love that :-) > > +1 > -- > Klaus 'mrmoku' Kurzmann > > _______________________________________________ > Smartphones-userland mailing list > Smartphones-userland@linuxtogo.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/smartphones-userland
Smaller config files are cleaner you do not have to think as much "parsing" the contents. You automatically know that all settings you see belongs to one framework component. Also no config "merging" is required if you just want to try out a new component (Recently changed my exim4 config back to monolithic, so it can be overdone as well.... just too many files and folders for ONE service) +2 -- Visti Andresen _______________________________________________ Smartphones-userland mailing list Smartphones-userland@linuxtogo.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/smartphones-userland
