On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 22:16, Farkas Levente wrote:
so what I do not understand:
- what the "group" means? why not just a simple {} pair?
- until no there wasn't any king of grouping eg. what can I write inside a login {} part? what is the server part ? etc... it seems to me a config file can become a big mass.
- in the 1. case server a is a union of all group where "server a" appear or???
everybody else understand it and just I'm so stupid?
For me it's simpler and more structured... It could also minimize the actual size needed for a really cool config.
If you had ever worked with bind (dns) you'd recognize the syntax immediately but you don't have to add the semicolons.
Example: zone "0.0.127.in-addr.arpa" { type master; file "named.local"; };
group imap { protocols = imap # some IMAP defaults for a/b server a { ... } server b { ... } }
group pop3 { protocols = pop3 # different POP3 defaults for a/b server a { ... } server b { ... } }
How about protocol <protocol name> { protocol specific options } ?
Since i have some comments i'll be chipping in here.
- Are servers themselves, providing defaults for subgroups:
server main-server { # defaults login { listen = main.server.org }
or listen { comma-seperated-list }
auth default { # ... } server debug-server { login { listen = debug.main.server.org auth_verbose = yes
couldn't auth verbose be in a global or per server entry 'options { comma-seperated-list } ? or have i been playing to much with bind?
} # possibly a few other settings changed} }
All-in-all i like the C like syntax and i find it more *nix than var = value. (been using to many old deamons it seems... =))
PS. Hi Emma, you show up everywhere except arcnet =) DS.
-- Ian Kumlien pomac@vapor.com