I am completely missing the point of this letter I realize.. but
doesnt your "The Right Way" also hide all the complex things too. It
either does that or removes a lot of functionality that some admin
needs to complete a job in a slightly different environment... which
means enforcing that everyone's enviromental needs matches what you
are laying out. I have to cover 8 different field environments and
tasks that require that the same tools do something slightly different
each time. Now I can build 8 versions of the same tool that reuses 90%
of the same code or I can increase the complexity of the each tool to
cover all cases.
I did not say gconftool-2 should be the the solution, only that it
shows how a single tool can be very powerful when it has a standard file
configuration file format to work with. I am by no means
advocating using xml as the standard configuration format, it is way over
kill in my opinion.
Nothing is hidden by standardizing config files, I am not implying they
should be hidden in a binary file.... nor am I implying they couldn't be
edited with sed or vi although that would likely be inefficient when
compared to using a tool designed to manage configuration data.
Please provide an example of how this would harm your ability to:
"cover 8 different field environments and tasks that require that the
same tools do something slightly different each time"
Perhaps you are just confusing my story of what lead to my conclusions
with my actual suggestion?
Cheers,
Shane
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
