Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
> That would require extensions and standard library functions within the mono
> gui to make it a documented API for connecting to... sounds like a lot more
> effort for Manuel - and I don't think that will fly.
> Anyone capable of writing a module can easily maintain their own config
> file - steal the code that is in the base mono gui, but putting it in the
> same file could introduce complexity and confusions and problems and bring
> more support issues to the list - don't think that's good.
Just a thought :P
Mmm.. S'pose it really does not matter. It just means that each module
will need to export it's own config file. I was thinking that if you
have to export a config for every module + monowall it could become
tedious, but it probably depends how many modules people will have.
Maybe just some "suggested" convention like naming each module's config
file config-<module>.xml, which is stored in the same place (&media) as
the monowall config file (format left as unspecified xml) so people can
steal the existing config file loading logic as you say..