Thompson, David <dthomps...@worcester.edu> writes: > I'm seeing a trend where people write services with configuration > types that don't cover nearly the amount of configuration options to > make the service useful. MySQL, and now this Redis server, are > examples of this. There are many more configuration options in Redis > than this service exposes. > > What do we do?
Since there is no automated way to cover all options (or even the most useful subset) for all possible services I think it’s okay to start with a minimally useful service definition. We can extend them later as people see the need for better coverage. One thing I’d always like to see, though, is an escape hatch that allows users to extend the service with plain text configuration snippets. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC http://elephly.net
