Re: linux registry (no, not that again!)

["W. Michael Petullo" <mike flyn org>]

[...]

>> 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