Re: config library, was GNOME registry

[bratsche dfw net]

If you're going to work on this, then I'd like to request that you make
data types available for storing. Ex:

#filecfg.o
somedata {
  setting1=1
  setting2=Cody
}

Obviously setting2 would be read as a string, but setting1 appears to have
no way of type identification. I think you should provide a way of
identifying it as an integer or string or whatever. It should also be easy
to store arrays of data in a single entry field.

Cody

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Fox, Kevin M wrote:

> Just some ideas. Tell me what you think
> 
> The functions could be like the file/dir functions.
> 
> You start by opening the main config location
> somthing like
> config=cfgOpen("sendmail");
> 
> to get a list out of settings in the root of the settings 
> 
> setting_name=cfgList(config, NUMBER);
> 
> to get the property for the setting
> 
> prop=cfgSetting(config, setting_name);
> 
> There should be also directories in the library
> 
> config=cfgOpen("sendmail/directory1");
> 
> maby the outputed file for the file module would look somthing like this:
> 
> #filecfg.o
> dirname {
>   setting=whatever
>   setting=whatever
>   dirname {
>     setting=whatever
>   }
> }
> setting=whatever
>   
> maby the config file for the ldap module could look like
> 
> #ldapcfg.o
> #server="localhost"
> #searchbase="ou=settings, o=someserver, c=whatever
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Fox, Kevin M [SMTP:kmfox@bhi010.bhi-erc.com]
> > Sent:	Thursday, December 31, 1998 11:36 AM
> > To:	'bratsche@dfw.net'; Fox, Kevin M
> > Subject:	RE: GNOME registry
> > 
> > Well, the library would be like PAM. Since most programs use PAM now,
> > someone convinced them it would be a better way of doing it. A universal
> > config abstraction library, If implemented well, would actually save
> > programmers time. They wouldn't have to program config file loading/saving
> > code. Having such a library doesn't relate to GNOME. It would be a
> > universal
> > registry, not just a GNOME registry.
> > 
> > There could be a caplet for the library written allowing for easily
> > changing
> > settings, kinda like an LDAP tool where you can surf through the settings.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	bratsche@dfw.net [SMTP:bratsche@dfw.net]
> > > Sent:	Thursday, December 31, 1998 11:30 AM
> > > To:	Fox, Kevin M
> > > Cc:	Rowan van der Molen; 'gnome-list@gnome.org'
> > > Subject:	RE: GNOME registry
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It would be handy to be able to configure everything from one location.
> > > To this end, I would love to have something like a control-center
> > capplet
> > > to configure them someday. But Apache, sendmail, and all the other
> > > programs we're used to using already have standard locations for storing
> > > their data and your chances of persuading the authors or maintainers of
> > > those to optionally store their data in the GNOME registry is 0% or very
> > > close. =)
> > > I think making requests such as these from GNOME is asking too much.
> > > However, making a GNOMEified configuration program or capplet or
> > something
> > > would be cool. I don't know enough about either sendmail or Apache
> > > configuration to even be useful in helping something like that, but if
> > you
> > > do I'm sure it would be appreciated by many.
> > > 
> > > Cody
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> > > 
> > > > All I am saying, is if we want to implament something like the
> > registry,
> > > it
> > > > would be "a good thing" to be able to configure sendmail, ftp, apache,
> > > and
> > > > other non gnome programs the same way. A standard "everything" config
> > > > library would work well for this.
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From:	bratsche@dfw.net [SMTP:bratsche@dfw.net]
> > > > > Sent:	Thursday, December 31, 1998 12:24 AM
> > > > > To:	Rowan van der Molen
> > > > > Subject:	RE: GNOME registry
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You've got to be kidding. They obviously can't PREVENT non-GNOME
> > > > > applications from reading the registry. But wtf would another
> > > application
> > > > > WANT to mess with the registry? I think this 'this feature should be
> > > in
> > > > > the operating system rather than GNOME' line of thinking is sort of
> > > > > impractical. Furthermore, I believe GNOME shouldn't be going around
> > > the
> > > > > system creating things that aren't obviously GNOME-related;
> > otherwise
> > > > > you're going to end up with a lot of apparent garbage and I think
> > > that's
> > > > > something that we'd all like to do without.
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Rowan van der Molen wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > >I think somthing like this needs to be a system wide thing, not
> > > just
> > > > > GNOME.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, I will kill all the GNOME developers pesonally if they are
> > > going to
> > > > > > implement something
> > > > > > usable for GNOME only.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > >         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at
> > > http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
> > > > > >          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with 
> > > > > >                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > >         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at
> > > http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
> > > > >          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with 
> > > > >                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
> > > > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> >         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
> >          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with 
> >                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
> 
> 
> -- 
>         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
>