Re: includes inside squid.conf

From: Joe Cooper <>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 20:11:16 -0600

I'll buy that.

I'm out of the includes debate.

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 April 2002 01:39, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>A simpler way is to NOT have optional includes.
> And even simpler is not to have includes at all, and refer to a god
> pre-processor if one wants includes..
> If we are to have includes in Squid then there should only be very
> rudimentary include support. If more advanced "include" support is
> needed then one SHOULD use a good pre-processor having all the fancy
> bells and whistles needed for the purpose, including a zillion
> different tests, math, looping constructs to automate repetitive
> sections, etc.
> What I do in my squid.conf template is something like the following:
> foreach cachedrive
> If not mounted, I try to mount it.
> If still not mounted, newfs the drive and try again
> If mounted
> cache_dir ${cachedrive.path} ${cachedrive.size} \
> aufs ${cachedrive.L1} ${cachedrive.L2}
> done
> I don't think it is not realistic to think that the Squid
> conifiguration parser even should attempt to have any capabilities
> approaching this, but quite many suitable "pre-processors" do and
> many should.
> After careful consideration I think I will withdraw my support for
> include files outside what we already have. As Alex pointed out, if
> we start to embark on this path we do not know where we will end up,
> and as there already exists very good tools for the job I see no
> reason why to implement yet another one. Better to spend some small
> amount of time to document how to use any of the existing
> pre-processors such as m4 for the job.
> Regards
> Henrik

Joe Cooper <>
Web Caching Appliances and Support
Received on Mon Apr 01 2002 - 19:13:41 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:14:56 MST