Re: Extending the mysql configuration

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Wed 19 Apr 2017 19:45, Christopher Baines <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I also spotted the define-configuration syntax, which looks like it
>> might work well, but I wanted to check if this was definitely a
>> direction more services were heading before attempting to write out a
>> large part of the supported configuration options.
>
> MHO is this is the direction we should go in.  Having a configuration
> defined in a data type that Guix can understand makes it easier to
> operate on the system as a whole -- the system can see your mysql
> configuration and introspect on it, it's easy to define extension
> points, etc.  There are a few services that use this approach and I
> expect the number to grow over time.  At the same time many of these
> services have the option to fall back on an opaque configuration when
> you have special needs or a different workflow -- see dovecot for a very
> long example.

I agree.

Record types defined with ‘define-configuration’ or similar are
preferable to using an alist or another dictionary type also because of
the set of fields is checked at macro-expansion time (eventually I’d
like to have some static type checks in there too).

Ludo’.