Re: (Fwd) Re: includes inside squid.conf

Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
>
>>On Wednesday 03 April 2002 00:16, Andres Kroonmaa wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>http://devel.squid-cache.org/projects.html#cf_preprocess
>>>
>>> Cute. case closed?
>>
>>I don't know. It is just one small proposal on how to deal with it.
>>
>>Which one do you prefer for your use?
>>
>> a) Simple include capability in Squid
>>
>> b) Simple integration any pre-processor to deal with includes and
>>potentioally other complex problems, but at the cost of less precise
>>error handling as the two isn't integrated.
>
>
> add to (b): inability to share configs with #includes without sharing
> (and, essentially, requiring) a given "any pre-processor"
>
> See my previous post on why such sharing and related activities is the
> primary reason to have an internal preprocessor, IMO.

Henrik might be onto something, even for the case you suggest as being
the most useful purpose of includes:

A proper pre-processor can do things like adapt to the environment with
a few variables set by the user..It would be possible to construct a
'simplified transparent' include, for example, which gets the
cache_dirs, and maybe a few other items from the user...they never have
to worry about all of the other stuff (or even the proper syntax for a
cache_dir line or similar).

Simple includes requires the user to know what they need to change. Of
course comments can help here--but we already have lots comments in the
squid.conf...probably too many for new users.

Being the selfish sort that I am, though, I'm thinking of my use for
wanting includes which is to allow a single squid.conf (with a few
differences) to be used in a cluster environment easily. Everything
else is just gravy. Either option will work for my primary
purposes...simple includes, or preprocessor includes. Either is an
improvement over today.

-- 
Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
http://www.swelltech.com
Web Caching Appliances and Support