NFD » ndn-cxx

Not exactly related to this issue, but related to config file. Should we make ConfigFile a general-use config-file parser to be used by anybody using library or it should stay as specialized version, just for the library?

To be clear, I think NFD and the library need to have different ConfigFiles because they're using different parsing models. NFD has complex sections and it's nice to be able to delegate their parsing to the module it relates to. My experience so far with library configuration is that there's some value you care about and you just want to directly access it (i.e. no real complicated parsing to deal with).

If you think the library's model is useful for a variety applications, then I don't have any objections to generalizing it. I could do is add the existing suite of parse functions from the NFD ConfigFile so that it can handle filenames, strings, etc. Then, I would add a version of parse that accepts a function that searches potential configuration file locations (as the library ConfigFile does now).

That was just a thought. Given the simplicity of config file implementation, the one in the library can be used just as a reference for others. So, I guess it is better to have this ConfigFile in the library to be library-specific.