[Discussion] Configuration file conditional preprocessor

[Victor Julien]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin Fong wrote:
> Victor,
> 
>>  I understand your goal and I like it. However one of our goals is
>>  to make the configuration & tuning less complex. Adding this type
>>  of complexity could conflict with that goal. On the other hand just
>>  having to configure one config that could be deployed everywhere in
>>  your organization may make it simpler again... thoughts?
> 
> The complexity of a configuration file is subject to its design and
> implementation, and I assert that the addition of conditional
> processing directives, whose use is optional, neither fosters nor
> hinders this complexity.  However, like multiple inheritance in OOPLs,
> you'll seldom need it, but when you do, the workarounds are both
> inconvenient and ugly.

You're right about that Martin, I just fear it will increase
implementation complexity quite a bit for just a very small group of
users. But maybe it's worth it.

Does anyone have ideas about what kind of configuration format to use? I
think it should be:
- - easy to edit by humans
- - easy to parse by programs
- - preferably be (similar to) something ppl already know

I think Snort3 is going to use Lua for example. ModSecurity uses Apache
style configuration.

Regards,
Victor

- --
- ---------------------------------------------
Victor Julien
http://www.inliniac.net/
PGP: http://www.inliniac.net/victorjulien.asc
- ---------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmVQRoACgkQiSMBBAuniMcddACeOxnS1WmFpO9XWoaua5Yj7FuP
FHQAnAkSrnzTCIYAchePywpd1TE6lcHk
=qOiC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----