Subject: Re: So...

From: Kent Landfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:39:14 -0500 (CDT)

# : If we are talking about replacing all directives of the same type on first
# : encounter in a virtual domain's specific ftpaccess file then wouldn't it be
# : easier to simply have a complete copy of what we want and then simply edit 
# : that ?

# No, because separate configfiles makes it clear that they really belong to a
# different site and I hate extra typing. One might argue that merging is
# easier then, but I just thought of another reason why merging in additional
# stuff can be confusing. I'd hate to run into an ftpusers file for some site
# with just 'ftp' in it. Somehow I wouldn't quite trust it. I'd prefer a
# 'complete' list for that and for the other files except ftpaccess.

I was not considering merging the other files at this time.  What I meant to 
say was a complete ftpaccess config file for each domain.  That way then there 
is no problem with having to look in two different files to see what a domain 
has permission-wise, worrying about a new syntax or rules for dealing with 
merging/overriding, etc. Clean and simple, what you see is what you've
got for that domain.

The more I think about it the more I don't see the benefit of merging.  The
only time it would be useful would be when you need to make massive changes
to your message files disk configuration.  I see too many negatives and not
enough value other than saving a few K of disk space and initially a minute 
or two of admin time, even for large sites (and that's questionable).  Admin 
maintenance will probably be less with a single file than two separate files 
and balancing directives between them. Personally I'd much rather deal with 
a complete copy of a virtual domains files rather having to deal with multiple 
sets.  It also makes the code simpler, quicker and cleaner as well.  

# : Maybe I'm making this too complicated...
# Yes ;-)

I thought so.  Thanks.

# [snip marketingspeak]
# 
# : :) Perry, are you in marketing ?  Can I use that ? ;-)  A visual cookiejar
# No but I took some courses in it in a past life. :) Sure.
# 
# : metaphor could be useful for FTP archive sites. ;) :)
# I think I'm going to get a ruler to hit the warez folks with
# "Been grabbing in the cookiejar again have you!!??"
# 
# Oh, I propose to make the default for the shutdown parameter
# the_lid_is_shut and logging erroneous login attempts with
# LOG_FAIL, "Slamming down lid. The jar is closed!"
# 
# Ah, I can just hear our helpdesk:
# "Ehm.. we have a customer complaining that he can't access the cookiejar?"

;)

-- 
Kent Landfield                        Phone: 1-817-545-2502             
The Landfield Group                   FAX:   1-817-545-7650             
Email: [email-masked]             http://www.landfield.com/
Please send comp.sources.misc related mail to [email-masked].
Search the Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/

---

From: Bob Luckin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 97 11:32:41 CDT

I agree with Kent that the best solution at the moment is to maintain a
complete ftpaccess file for a virtual server, if you want to override anything
at all in the default ftpaccess file.  (As I understand it, you don't need a
separate ftpaccess file if you don't want to change anything, as the default
will then be used.)

This is not exacly a lot of hassle for the sys-admin - just copy the default
and change the bits you want.

It doesn't seem worth the design and programming effort to try to merge a
partial ftpaccess file into the default one, when just maintaining a complete
alternative file is so easy.

Just my tuppence worth...

Cheers, Bob
-- 
Bob Luckin      [email-masked]      "Able was I ere I saw Waterloo"

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 1 Jul 1997 21:37:46 GMT

Pink elephants with an attitude inspired Kent Landfield <[email-masked]> to tell garfield.mail.wu-ftpd:
: The more I think about it the more I don't see the benefit of merging.  The
: only time it would be useful would be when you need to make massive changes
: to your message files disk configuration.  I see too many negatives and not
: enough value other than saving a few K of disk space and initially a minute 
: or two of admin time, even for large sites (and that's questionable).  Admin 
: maintenance will probably be less with a single file than two separate files 
: and balancing directives between them. Personally I'd much rather deal with 
: a complete copy of a virtual domains files rather having to deal with multiple 
: sets.  It also makes the code simpler, quicker and cleaner as well.  
I'd be against merging of other files except ftpaccess for the reason
mentioned earlier. For ftpaccess, it saves you some time, a couple of K
perhaps, but if having complete files makes it 100% easier to code.. soit.
It's just that I prefer to have some defaults. Then again, I don't want to
have those defaults if it means I have to change lots of extra files or have
files with just one entry where I'd suspect more.

Back to stupid buffering problems in the newsfeed for the moment.

-- 
Perry Rovers ([email-masked])