On 3/29/06, Bill Crawford <billcrawford1970(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There are plenty of reasons why it hasn't happened, among which
of experiments with various forms of "registry" ...
It never happend because of the "bazar" nature of the OSS development model.
One of its big drawbacks is that there is no central architecture, no
central desing directions, no central decisions. So we see A LOT of code
rewriting, programs being developed in A LOT of different languages, and A
LOT of different configuration files formats.
As we all know, OSS model also have good advantages too.
The reason most applications use individual config files instead of
repository is because that makes it much, *much* easier to:
1. Design a domain-specific config language. XML does *NOT* solve this
problem; it is a *lexical* (meta)language. The structure goes on top.
I see this as a disadvantage, since all, ALL config files are not more then
an hierarchical structure of key/value pairs. All lexical stuff you are
saying are fat to make it more human readable.
2. Point to a different config file when you start a program.
You can also point your program to a different root tree of keys. So using
$ httpd -c system/tmp/mytest/mysite.com
3. Copy config files, rename them, reuse them, move them into
environments, and generally be *free* to do so.
You can do the same with configuration trees. Elektra lets you even export
These points are not good enough to deny some sort of standarization.