[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- From: "W. Michael Petullo" <mike flyn org>
- To: "Development discussions related to Fedora Core" <fedora-devel-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:39:28 -0500 (CDT)
[...]
>> Yeah why do people want to move to a single config database anyways? So
>> you can have a single point of failure for an entire server and all
>> services? Or so one poorly written app can corrupt it all? Ya know I
>> agree with you guys here.
[...]
> A libconfig (or something) that exports a standard API that programs use
> to look up configuration values. It writes PLAIN TEXT configuration
> files to somewhere in /etc in a consistent format across all
> applications that use it.
>
> Most things store config files in /etc right now, so in the _current_
> situation, if your /etc/ takes a dive, you're hosed. I fail to see how
> a config situation as described in the above paragraph would be _worse_
> than what exists now.
>
> The point of a good converged config project (IMHO) would be a
> _consistent_ _file_ _format_ in plain-text files, NOT a binary-only
> single-file registry. People simply don't seem to understand that.
And consistency should bring /less/ failures because the total amount of
configuration reading code would be greatly reduced.
--
Mike
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]