Re: MRFC: Midgard site startup and configuration.

Torben Nehmer <[email protected]> wrote:

> - --Piotras wrote on 2006-02-07 10:20:
> > I am not any component developer but: Two sites I initilized without M-T are
> > not working anymore and frankly speaking I have no time or will to debug what
> > happened. However M-T is slow I vote for M-T. Reason is very simple. I know
> > that M-T based sites are going to work as expected.
> 
> You think so, ok. I have nearly a dozen of examples where current M-T broke more
> things, than it fixed. It is purely a matter of perspective.
> 
> We need a site management system, but not something like current M-T.

OK, I will correct myself ( probably I am the only one midcom *user* on this dev list ).
As a user I need something like M-T. It doesn't matter for me what's under the hood. 
 
> > $some_midcom_site->port 
> > $some_midcom_site->prefix
> > $some_midcom_site->whatever
> > 
> > Is *much* more readable than another set of huge set of arrays.
> 
> Leading to a table which needs to be extended with each and every configuration
> option I add to MidCOM. Right now, we already have literally dozens of such
> options (around 50 I guess) part of which are system-wide, part of it
> site-specific. Some options are even complex types, not simple ports or prefixes.

I do not think you would like to have 500 configuration options.
It doesn't have to be db related. I was only pointing to arrays' hell 
( probably I am the only one midcom *user* on this dev list ).

Piotras