Re: config.w32.h...registry configuration

At 13:14 02/05/2002 -0700, Shane Caraveo wrote:

Andi Gutmans wrote: Isn't this all a bit of an overkill? Andi #5 probably is, it's a nicety, but I think the other items are relatively necessary unless you are dependent entirely on Apache, which provides extensive configurability. #1 would allow scripts that only are used on 'command line' to be better configured with seperate ini files.

I really don't like #1.

#2 gets rid of needing a bunch of directories for multiple ini files, and is very handy for #4.

#2 makes sense.

#3 should be done irregardless (if it isn't already done), otherwise server plugins will only be able to use ini files located in the os directory. If you run both Apache and IIS on the same system, you may well want different ini files for the two. That could be accomplised by different installations as long as the sapi module detects it's own directory.

Not sure how you see this exactly. Can you expand?

#4 is realy needed for systems running virtual servers under IIS. While you can configure ini in the registry, it's a pain, especially if you want to give users access to edit their own ini file, or you want different extensions loaded for different servers that run under seperate dllhosts.

Why not write a nice configuration GUI which edits your registry automatically? Sounds like a nice Windows project for someone on the list. Andi