From: Zoran V. <zv...@ar...> - 2006-08-22 11:00:47
|
On 22.08.2006, at 12:56, Bernd Eidenschink wrote: > > My only suggestion would be to be somehow able to let the current > behaviour > (read-only-access) be configurable or default; read-only-access in > some > situations is a means of security - in others of course it is more > or less > useless, as one can drop or at least delete the database anyway. Yes. Actually, security on one and performance on the other side are major reasons against such a change. But in some cases, as in ours, neither of those really apply. Yet we could benefit a lot from already existing code which is both Tcl and C-level accesible. I do not know if it will be possible to do select this as runtime option w/o performance (locking) penalty. I may need to make it a compile-time option. But I haven't started on that yet, so I can't really say which way it will go, if at all. > > A change of an option should also be worth a "ns_log notice" in > that respect. > > If, as a side-effect of your work, you will find it easy to > implement a way to > let ns_config return all > a) non-core/non-default/non-c-module-specific you mean only those set from the "outside" i.e. config file? > b) not-belonging-to-this-section give me one example about what you mean. Cheers Zoran |