Re: Wim's Conf Proposal

> Ok. In case the conf_value is an array, 'value' would give you a 
> var_dump
> or so; 'get' would give the (multilevel) array.

Ah - I think its unnecessary? What do others think?


> Don't know how that would fit in the Api, without an extra parameter.
> What about 'scope' ? Replace that with level?

Yeah, sounds good.

>> 		-Do people believe "user" is a good idea? (We could allow conf to be
>> used in runtime systems for pref storage - it's a perfect dictionary
>> storage thing that could use SimpleEntity.
>> 	-I propose to have _no_ preloading of configuration values - they
>> should be fetched and cached by conf only when requested.
>
> No backward- or forward- compatibilty with current conf;?

Eh? Currently the loading is automatic and requests are

$conf->getConf('smarty');

so now they would be:

Conf::Get('/path/to/blah');

?

Re: the user stuff... set just takes a param, and we assume that user 
conf would use quite different paths.

How would this affect forward compatibility? Backward compatibility 
doesn't matter because we'll update everything anyway :)

> Agreed.
> Issue: scope? or level?

Hm. Level.

> issue: compatiblity or change source bc_3 ?

change bc 3

> I'll wait for all the comments. Thursday I'll hack the class-code and 
> test
> it.

Whee :)

cool,

_a