On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 04:58:21PM +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yeah, that may actually be a very good way to implement it. I don't like
> > the idea of continously appending to an existing file, but if we did have a
> > separate file with a tightly controlled format that would be doable.
>
> +1
>
> Separating the automatically written configuration and the explicit user
> configuration is definitely the right approach. My experience comes from
> Debian where packages editing their own configuration files is verboten.
> Otherwise you run into problems reconciling user-made changes and automatic
> changes.
>
> The include file method is workable but isn't perfect. What happens if a user
> connects with pgadmin and changes a parameter but that parameter is overridden
> by a variable in the config file?
Um, if you put the include statement at the bottom, isn't that the one that
will override?
> The alternative is to have two files and read them both. Then if you change a
> variable which is overridden by the other source you can warn that the change
> is ineffective.
Ok, now I don't follow. If we use an include, we do have two files, and we
read them both, no?
> I think on balance the include file method is so much simpler that I prefer
> it.
Yeah, that is one very clear argument for that method.
Since there have been no major protests, I assume that if I can come up
with reasonably pretty code without opening up any horrible holes, going
by the include method is the way to go?
//Magnus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
