On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Bill Crawford wrote:
I'd argue that as the number of subnets and special case workstations
goes up, the ability of a system administrator to read and understand
the flat file is going to be markedly harder than for the admin to read
the custom-crafted dhcp-config syntax.
And I would agree for the .ini format.
Really?
How does .ini format give you containers beyond the first level? By numbering
the keys? ugh.
The dhcp config file format is a much better match for a) the way people
think if they know the problem domain b) allows *hierarchy*. XML at least
gets that right (and I *don't* think xml is the answer).
I think you misunderstand. I did not bring up xml or ini files. I was
agreeing that a large dhcp config file converted to an .ini file would be
a mess.
But things change considerably
when instead we deal with all configuration elements as keys and their
values in a filesystem like structure.
And this is the issue. Look at the mess that is SNMP MIBs. Can you read
those? Can you?
I fail to see the relationship. We are not talking about the windows
registry here... in which case the above statement would make sense...
Cheers,
Shane
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
