Samofatov, Nickolay wrote:

>I am inclined to approach 2 which is the currently used approach in the
>engine.
>It allows to install engine plugins without editing configuration files
>which is good for usability.
>
>

If the configuration files were shipped with the system modules mapped,
there would be no need to edit a configuration file unless a new module
is introduced. I recognize this is a problem with the pre-Vulcan
configuration file that comingles system and user parameters in a single
file, making updating it problematic.

What I would like to see is something that works for FB 2 head, is
upwards compatible to Vulcan configuration files, but still gives us the
flexibility in the future.

>In any case, even if in future we decide to go way 3 config files or any
>other kind of registry is going to map module names to physical file
>names so there is not going to be any harm from storing module names in
>database anyways.
>
>
>

I agree. Unless we impose a heavy naming standard, we need to cope with
the problem that two database functions may have the same entrypoint
name but in different modules.

But I still want to see a full solution (which wouldn't be cast in
concrete) before we agree on a subset.

--

Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376