Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 12:11:09 +0100 From: Eduardo Morras <emorrasg@yahoo.es> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libUCL / UCL as FreeBSD config question Message-ID: <20151122121109.3b757d2c550609a7fbd46748@yahoo.es> In-Reply-To: <564F6411.6040208@freebsd.org> References: <5B598F72-C5DD-48FD-866D-F90E117D646E@rdsor.ro> <564F6118.5030702@freebsd.org> <20151120191426.a720ca4f4e73bd867d535104@yahoo.es> <564F6411.6040208@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:18:57 -0500 Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2015-11-20 13:14, Eduardo Morras wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:06:16 -0500 > > Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> Although some limitation in libucl mean that, if you have a config > >> that has comments in it, the comments are lost, as they are not > >> represented in the in-memory version of the object that then gets > >> serialized for output. If you treat the config files as a database, > >> then this is fine, but if the user expects to still hand edit them > >> with an editor, this is a fairly big POLA violation. > > > > POLA as in > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment or > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege ? > > Astonishment. The user put meaningful comments in their config file, > they used the utility to make a change to some value elsewhere in the > config file, now their config file is written possibly in a different > order, and with no comments. Thanks for the clarification, I thought the user should not have enough privileges to access the config files. > >> -- > >> Allan Jude > > --- --- > > Eduardo Morras <emorrasg@yahoo.es>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151122121109.3b757d2c550609a7fbd46748>