Re: [repro-devel] [repro-users] Repro Configuration
Hi,
I wonder if it would be possible to find a way to support both command
line options and configuration files through a transparent interface.
I know the Poco framework (http://pocoproject.org/docs/), through its
Poco::Util::Application class, supports a nice configuration API. It
automatically loads from .ini, .xml, ... files and also automatically
processes configuration items from the command line. The API itself
(through Poco::Util::Application::config()) makes the underlying
configuration store totally transparent (you can probably even extend
it to support mysql).
My main reason is that I find it extremely useful to be able to launch
applications like repro in a "one-shot" way from the command line.
This is quite useful when performing automated system tests (the test
manager can easily launch the components) or when "embedding" the app
(like repro) "within" another one where it is simply launched from an
execv/... call as an OS command.
I know bringing in a dependency on Poco would probably be a big deal
(and would conflict with rutil on multiple aspects), but I wonder if
there are other open source "configuration management" libraries
available out there (maybe boost has one?).
This would be more like a "nice to have" for me on the long run, so we
can always come back after your changes and implement it if others see
value.
Cheers,
Francis
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Scott Godin <sgodin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi All,
> Repro currently get's its configuration from a combination of two locations:
> 1. Command line options.
> 2. Berkely DB or MySQL datastore.
> As repro has matured the command line options list has grown significantly.
> I've heard feedback on a number of occasions that people in general prefer
> a configuration file as opposed to command line options. A configuration
> file can be fully documented, and provides some persistence of settings
> between runs (without needing to create a startup script, or batch file).
> I am in the process of converting the current command line options to be
> able to read from a configuration file instead. I was originally
> considering an approach that would allow you to specify a setting using
> either method, however the further get along with this, the more I'm
> realizing that this will just increase the complexity when adding new
> settings in the future. Besides being backwards compatible with older repro
> releases, I am not seeing any major reasons to keep the command line options
> interface around.
> Users: Would anyone be opposed to a complete deprecation of the command
> line option interface, given a configuration file interface as a
> replacement? Note: I've attached a sample configuration file to help you
> visualize how this would look.
> Developers: I'm also going to cleanup how the settings are passed around to
> the various Processors (Monkey's, Lemur's and Baboons), so that modification
> of the Processor constructor isn't required every time a new setting is
> needed. All these changes will make it much simpler to add new settings and
> use them, without needing to make modifications to 5 or 6 files.
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> repro-users mailing list
> repro-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/repro-users
>