[addicted]

How about an all in one config file?

You have a standard JSON config file “.config.json” that resides in the root folder with a global object, with each key containing the config for each tool.

Collisions might be a concern, but you could use the tool’s url as the key so it’s unique. You are already seeing runtimes like Deno and Go do that for importing source code. Couldn’t the same thing apply for this config file as well?

[bryanrasmussen]

I'm pretty sure that I've read an aphorism along the lines that every configuration over time develops into an ad hoc programming language (similar to Greenspun's 10th rule so maybe I am just misremembering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule)

At any rate the closest I could find to this saying was this HN post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8092967 "Configuration files suck. Just use a programming language"

>but you could use the tool’s url as the key so it’s unique.

reminds me of XML namespaces.

on edit: formatting

[alephu5]

That's how I configure my projects using dhall.

I'm working on a web application at the moment with a REST API, database, rabbitMQ, a few python workers, nginx, 2 react projects and a Gatsby project plus some docker composes for testing.

Everything is configured in the root file and then this is imported into smaller dhall files in the subprojects. In the build scripts I generate all the yaml and JSON from these, even the docker-composes and it's very ergonomic.

[GenKali]

First I'm hearing of this tool and it seems really nice. Do you perhaps have an open repo that shows how you are using the dhall files? If I can reduce my config files to dhall + justfile I'd be quite happy.

[rumanator]

> How about an all in one config file?

What an awful idea. I don't even know where to start enumerating the problems that this approach creates, and what for? I mean, just think about it. Have you ever had to comb through a config file to add support for something but while you were not sure what option dictated which and what impact this or that option had because documentation is ineffective or awful or even non-existent?

Now multiply that complexity by all the options added by all the tools expected to use a file, compounded by the fact that God knows how many tools also write to that file and may or may not stay in their lane when doing so.

Who in the hell wants to deal with that mess?

And what for? Just because someone wants to adopt a tool but has a problem with having to configure its own config file?

[hakre]

Not so sure if it "must" be _one_ config file.

I also don't think that the format matters more than it's use.

Reminds me of some good advice in The Pragmatic Programmer, should be (simple) text-files for editing and (regardless if one or multiple files), a single source of truth (e.g. if multiple files, not the same time the same data to edit in). This is roughly as I remember it and I found it always useful to apply.

If I see duplication, it's about fighting the rot and remove it.

If configuration files are generated, they don't belong under version control (there are some exclusions to this rule, e.g. pinning dependency versions for example when shared with the repository).