[Dovecot] v2.0 configuration parsing

[Timo Sirainen]

On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 14:33 -0400, Joseph Yee wrote:
> Hi Timo,
> 
> What's your thought on the 'precedence order' (hope it make sense),   
> on protocol, remote_ip, local_ip?

I'm not sure if there is one.

> Sample 2 is tough, that's why I asked what's your thought on  
> precedence order.  Restricting syntax to only remote before local (or  
> vice versa) should resolve it.

Actually I don't think it would really solve much either.

> > local_ip 192.168.0.1 {
> >  remote_ip 10.1.2.0/24 {
> >    foo = foo
> >  }
> > }
> > remote_ip 10.1.2.3 {
> >  local_ip 192.168.0.0/24 {
> >    foo = bar
> >  }
> > }

You could write this as:

local_ip 192.168.0.1 {
  remote_ip 10.1.2.0/24 {
    foo = foo
  }
}
local_ip 192.168.0.0/24 {
  remote_ip 10.1.2.3 {
    foo = bar
  }
}

You'd still have to decide if local_ip is more important than remote_ip,
or if it should just be done in order and it should always use either
"first" or "last".
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20090810/be858a5e/attachment.bin