[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Brett Maxfield <maxfieb at spacenow dot net>
 To:  "Mitch (WebCob)" <mitch at webcob dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Announcement: Package functionality under serious consideration!
 Date:  Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:19:37 +1000
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..