On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
> To me, the question is more about choosing between writing configuration > file bindings and exposing upstream’s configuration file syntax, as was > discussed when Andy posted the Dovecot service. (To which I don’t have > a better answer than: let’s see on a case-by-case basis.) How about this: Procedures that return services should accept file-like objects when configuration files are needed. When it makes sense (like with elogind, dovecot, etc.), we can provide special procedures that take a Scheme data structure and "compile" that to a file-like object in the service's native configuration language. This way, we allow ourselves to have the high-level Scheme configuration APIs we like while also allowing the use of "raw" configuration files in situations where it is unavoidable or the path of least resistance. - Dave
