Re: config file [Was: Re: [OPERS] hidden stats patches]

[Krome <krome@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 04:22:29PM +0200, Bjorn Borud wrote:
> 
> I'd rather have a good configuration API and some work to provide
> better configurability (ie. move some of the compile time options OUT
> of config.h), and the option of writing your own configuration modules
> possibly with the option of loading them as DSOs (static linking
> must be offered in any case).
> 
> the real work is in sanitizing ircd somewhat, designing an API and
> documenting it.  just hacking support for various configuration
> alternatives into ircd directly seems pretty useless to me since
> people do not seem to agree on what to use.
> 
> -Bjørn
> 

Dude, this is almost all done. It looks simple enough so even beginner
could configure it.

First of all, ircd conf is too complicated for beginners and such,
it should be easy and powerful at same time.

But as I said, and I guess will continue saying:
You cannot add 100000 features when first we need to convert
current configuration format to new one, nothing is bug free.
If we just keep adding features before switching current thing
our effort will be useless.

But then again when I represented it, beeth & q bombared me with
10000 features, but this is wrong for now. Also I wanted config
file to be readable and not stuffed, the conf they proposed is not
+ would just complicate stuff even more & at end what you can do with
theirs you could do with mine.

I could document it its easy thing. But then they'd wanna change format
again. Besides you can easyly change keywords etc or syntax/semantics,
but default format should be used, it was created with ease in mind.

Just FYI:
Extending conf file also means change to /stats as this is old. And probably
we'll run out of letters. It would probably be more clear if you did:
/stats uptime instead of /stats u, tho stats u is shorter but who cares ?

Krome