Why do so many programs use “foo.bar.baz = qux” style configurations?











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I've noticed that tons of programs store configuration info in various hierarchial keys. For example, Firefox's about:config has keys like network.http.pipelining and network.http.pipelining.ssl and network.http.use-cache. I've noticed this style of configuration in Firefox, in OS X (Library/Preferences), in sysctl, among others. Why is it so common? Was there some early program that used it, so others copied it?










share|improve this question
























  • When something is too complicated to handle effectively, you break it down into a hierarchy with smaller, more manageable components...
    – Mehrdad
    Feb 19 '13 at 0:33












  • I've reopened the question. It's not "not constructive", as can be seen in the very informative answers.
    – slhck
    Feb 19 '13 at 6:54















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I've noticed that tons of programs store configuration info in various hierarchial keys. For example, Firefox's about:config has keys like network.http.pipelining and network.http.pipelining.ssl and network.http.use-cache. I've noticed this style of configuration in Firefox, in OS X (Library/Preferences), in sysctl, among others. Why is it so common? Was there some early program that used it, so others copied it?










share|improve this question
























  • When something is too complicated to handle effectively, you break it down into a hierarchy with smaller, more manageable components...
    – Mehrdad
    Feb 19 '13 at 0:33












  • I've reopened the question. It's not "not constructive", as can be seen in the very informative answers.
    – slhck
    Feb 19 '13 at 6:54













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











I've noticed that tons of programs store configuration info in various hierarchial keys. For example, Firefox's about:config has keys like network.http.pipelining and network.http.pipelining.ssl and network.http.use-cache. I've noticed this style of configuration in Firefox, in OS X (Library/Preferences), in sysctl, among others. Why is it so common? Was there some early program that used it, so others copied it?










share|improve this question















I've noticed that tons of programs store configuration info in various hierarchial keys. For example, Firefox's about:config has keys like network.http.pipelining and network.http.pipelining.ssl and network.http.use-cache. I've noticed this style of configuration in Firefox, in OS X (Library/Preferences), in sysctl, among others. Why is it so common? Was there some early program that used it, so others copied it?







tree configuration-managment






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 4 at 20:57









fixer1234

17.7k144581




17.7k144581










asked Feb 18 '13 at 23:06









cpast

2,11621325




2,11621325












  • When something is too complicated to handle effectively, you break it down into a hierarchy with smaller, more manageable components...
    – Mehrdad
    Feb 19 '13 at 0:33












  • I've reopened the question. It's not "not constructive", as can be seen in the very informative answers.
    – slhck
    Feb 19 '13 at 6:54


















  • When something is too complicated to handle effectively, you break it down into a hierarchy with smaller, more manageable components...
    – Mehrdad
    Feb 19 '13 at 0:33












  • I've reopened the question. It's not "not constructive", as can be seen in the very informative answers.
    – slhck
    Feb 19 '13 at 6:54
















When something is too complicated to handle effectively, you break it down into a hierarchy with smaller, more manageable components...
– Mehrdad
Feb 19 '13 at 0:33






When something is too complicated to handle effectively, you break it down into a hierarchy with smaller, more manageable components...
– Mehrdad
Feb 19 '13 at 0:33














I've reopened the question. It's not "not constructive", as can be seen in the very informative answers.
– slhck
Feb 19 '13 at 6:54




I've reopened the question. It's not "not constructive", as can be seen in the very informative answers.
– slhck
Feb 19 '13 at 6:54










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote



accepted










This hierarchical convention is there to provide clarity, helping us to know the scope of influence of each settings and to differentiate multiple settings with an identical or ambiguous name among various modules.



This is useful in applications with too many possible settings to include in the main user option pages (where the hierarchy is shown by tabs or pages), and a good alternative to plain INI files (with [title] section delimiters) that are more prone to user error and usually require an application restart to take effect.



Hierarchal settings are also likely to reflect, to an extent, the internal top-down object-oriented model used by the developers:



Image of hierarchy



In this example model, we could very well imagine a person.professor.disallow_strikes = true setting in there, while a students.disallow_strikes could remain to false or not be available at all. This compartmentalization is also the basis for Namespaces in programming languages (and the popular .NET framework follow the exact same naming convention: using System.Threading.Tasks).



So, we now can assume that network.http.xxx setting should not have influence on network.ftp or other network submodules, while a network.xxx setting will likely have influence on all of them.



The extra information is beneficial...




  • for the user: we have a better idea of which part of the application a given setting will have influence, making problems easier to troubleshoot (and avoid!)


  • and for the developers: the person working on or troubleshooting a specific module can be easily aware of which user-modifiable setting can affect his/her current work and concentrate on that.







share|improve this answer






























    up vote
    4
    down vote













    You've mentioned one of the main reasons in your opening sentence: hierarchical keys.



    Each group of keys is, uh, grouped. All the network related keys are network.something. All the http related keys are network.http.something and so on. This makes the key itself somewhat self-documenting what the value refers to. If one were to use the ini file style (which, to be clear, nothing would stop you from using these sorts of keys if you wanted) with [section] and key=value pairs, a given key may be ambiguous until the section is known. More over, the placement of keys in a file is important. Putting the ssl key in the [GUI] section is probably a mistake and may cause the key to be ignored. The a.b.c style should mean the order of keys in a file doesn't matter. If you read networking.http.ssl.key= it doesn't matter if the previous line was gui.background.color= or something else. The fully qualified key is named.



    Why is it so common? It's bloody useful, that's why. It's also easy for humans to read and understand (on a key by key basis) and edit.



    Where did it come from? I'd say C style structures which probably have a lineage I'm unaware of, and which have trickled down into many other programming languages as well. Setting a value in a C structure would be structure.property=value, and for nested structures structure.substructure.property=value and so on (though in real life, pointers would translate many of those dots into -> instead, but that's a minor trifle).






    share|improve this answer

















    • 3




      It's also like namespaces, the implication is that "." serves as a semantic separator.
      – mr.spuratic
      Feb 19 '13 at 0:02










    • Even better. What Mr. Spuratic said.
      – SuperMagic
      Feb 19 '13 at 0:07











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "3"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f554036%2fwhy-do-so-many-programs-use-foo-bar-baz-qux-style-configurations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    5
    down vote



    accepted










    This hierarchical convention is there to provide clarity, helping us to know the scope of influence of each settings and to differentiate multiple settings with an identical or ambiguous name among various modules.



    This is useful in applications with too many possible settings to include in the main user option pages (where the hierarchy is shown by tabs or pages), and a good alternative to plain INI files (with [title] section delimiters) that are more prone to user error and usually require an application restart to take effect.



    Hierarchal settings are also likely to reflect, to an extent, the internal top-down object-oriented model used by the developers:



    Image of hierarchy



    In this example model, we could very well imagine a person.professor.disallow_strikes = true setting in there, while a students.disallow_strikes could remain to false or not be available at all. This compartmentalization is also the basis for Namespaces in programming languages (and the popular .NET framework follow the exact same naming convention: using System.Threading.Tasks).



    So, we now can assume that network.http.xxx setting should not have influence on network.ftp or other network submodules, while a network.xxx setting will likely have influence on all of them.



    The extra information is beneficial...




    • for the user: we have a better idea of which part of the application a given setting will have influence, making problems easier to troubleshoot (and avoid!)


    • and for the developers: the person working on or troubleshooting a specific module can be easily aware of which user-modifiable setting can affect his/her current work and concentrate on that.







    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      5
      down vote



      accepted










      This hierarchical convention is there to provide clarity, helping us to know the scope of influence of each settings and to differentiate multiple settings with an identical or ambiguous name among various modules.



      This is useful in applications with too many possible settings to include in the main user option pages (where the hierarchy is shown by tabs or pages), and a good alternative to plain INI files (with [title] section delimiters) that are more prone to user error and usually require an application restart to take effect.



      Hierarchal settings are also likely to reflect, to an extent, the internal top-down object-oriented model used by the developers:



      Image of hierarchy



      In this example model, we could very well imagine a person.professor.disallow_strikes = true setting in there, while a students.disallow_strikes could remain to false or not be available at all. This compartmentalization is also the basis for Namespaces in programming languages (and the popular .NET framework follow the exact same naming convention: using System.Threading.Tasks).



      So, we now can assume that network.http.xxx setting should not have influence on network.ftp or other network submodules, while a network.xxx setting will likely have influence on all of them.



      The extra information is beneficial...




      • for the user: we have a better idea of which part of the application a given setting will have influence, making problems easier to troubleshoot (and avoid!)


      • and for the developers: the person working on or troubleshooting a specific module can be easily aware of which user-modifiable setting can affect his/her current work and concentrate on that.







      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        5
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        5
        down vote



        accepted






        This hierarchical convention is there to provide clarity, helping us to know the scope of influence of each settings and to differentiate multiple settings with an identical or ambiguous name among various modules.



        This is useful in applications with too many possible settings to include in the main user option pages (where the hierarchy is shown by tabs or pages), and a good alternative to plain INI files (with [title] section delimiters) that are more prone to user error and usually require an application restart to take effect.



        Hierarchal settings are also likely to reflect, to an extent, the internal top-down object-oriented model used by the developers:



        Image of hierarchy



        In this example model, we could very well imagine a person.professor.disallow_strikes = true setting in there, while a students.disallow_strikes could remain to false or not be available at all. This compartmentalization is also the basis for Namespaces in programming languages (and the popular .NET framework follow the exact same naming convention: using System.Threading.Tasks).



        So, we now can assume that network.http.xxx setting should not have influence on network.ftp or other network submodules, while a network.xxx setting will likely have influence on all of them.



        The extra information is beneficial...




        • for the user: we have a better idea of which part of the application a given setting will have influence, making problems easier to troubleshoot (and avoid!)


        • and for the developers: the person working on or troubleshooting a specific module can be easily aware of which user-modifiable setting can affect his/her current work and concentrate on that.







        share|improve this answer














        This hierarchical convention is there to provide clarity, helping us to know the scope of influence of each settings and to differentiate multiple settings with an identical or ambiguous name among various modules.



        This is useful in applications with too many possible settings to include in the main user option pages (where the hierarchy is shown by tabs or pages), and a good alternative to plain INI files (with [title] section delimiters) that are more prone to user error and usually require an application restart to take effect.



        Hierarchal settings are also likely to reflect, to an extent, the internal top-down object-oriented model used by the developers:



        Image of hierarchy



        In this example model, we could very well imagine a person.professor.disallow_strikes = true setting in there, while a students.disallow_strikes could remain to false or not be available at all. This compartmentalization is also the basis for Namespaces in programming languages (and the popular .NET framework follow the exact same naming convention: using System.Threading.Tasks).



        So, we now can assume that network.http.xxx setting should not have influence on network.ftp or other network submodules, while a network.xxx setting will likely have influence on all of them.



        The extra information is beneficial...




        • for the user: we have a better idea of which part of the application a given setting will have influence, making problems easier to troubleshoot (and avoid!)


        • and for the developers: the person working on or troubleshooting a specific module can be easily aware of which user-modifiable setting can affect his/her current work and concentrate on that.








        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited May 5 '15 at 12:17









        Chenmunka

        2,78481931




        2,78481931










        answered Feb 19 '13 at 0:30









        mtone

        10.8k53658




        10.8k53658
























            up vote
            4
            down vote













            You've mentioned one of the main reasons in your opening sentence: hierarchical keys.



            Each group of keys is, uh, grouped. All the network related keys are network.something. All the http related keys are network.http.something and so on. This makes the key itself somewhat self-documenting what the value refers to. If one were to use the ini file style (which, to be clear, nothing would stop you from using these sorts of keys if you wanted) with [section] and key=value pairs, a given key may be ambiguous until the section is known. More over, the placement of keys in a file is important. Putting the ssl key in the [GUI] section is probably a mistake and may cause the key to be ignored. The a.b.c style should mean the order of keys in a file doesn't matter. If you read networking.http.ssl.key= it doesn't matter if the previous line was gui.background.color= or something else. The fully qualified key is named.



            Why is it so common? It's bloody useful, that's why. It's also easy for humans to read and understand (on a key by key basis) and edit.



            Where did it come from? I'd say C style structures which probably have a lineage I'm unaware of, and which have trickled down into many other programming languages as well. Setting a value in a C structure would be structure.property=value, and for nested structures structure.substructure.property=value and so on (though in real life, pointers would translate many of those dots into -> instead, but that's a minor trifle).






            share|improve this answer

















            • 3




              It's also like namespaces, the implication is that "." serves as a semantic separator.
              – mr.spuratic
              Feb 19 '13 at 0:02










            • Even better. What Mr. Spuratic said.
              – SuperMagic
              Feb 19 '13 at 0:07















            up vote
            4
            down vote













            You've mentioned one of the main reasons in your opening sentence: hierarchical keys.



            Each group of keys is, uh, grouped. All the network related keys are network.something. All the http related keys are network.http.something and so on. This makes the key itself somewhat self-documenting what the value refers to. If one were to use the ini file style (which, to be clear, nothing would stop you from using these sorts of keys if you wanted) with [section] and key=value pairs, a given key may be ambiguous until the section is known. More over, the placement of keys in a file is important. Putting the ssl key in the [GUI] section is probably a mistake and may cause the key to be ignored. The a.b.c style should mean the order of keys in a file doesn't matter. If you read networking.http.ssl.key= it doesn't matter if the previous line was gui.background.color= or something else. The fully qualified key is named.



            Why is it so common? It's bloody useful, that's why. It's also easy for humans to read and understand (on a key by key basis) and edit.



            Where did it come from? I'd say C style structures which probably have a lineage I'm unaware of, and which have trickled down into many other programming languages as well. Setting a value in a C structure would be structure.property=value, and for nested structures structure.substructure.property=value and so on (though in real life, pointers would translate many of those dots into -> instead, but that's a minor trifle).






            share|improve this answer

















            • 3




              It's also like namespaces, the implication is that "." serves as a semantic separator.
              – mr.spuratic
              Feb 19 '13 at 0:02










            • Even better. What Mr. Spuratic said.
              – SuperMagic
              Feb 19 '13 at 0:07













            up vote
            4
            down vote










            up vote
            4
            down vote









            You've mentioned one of the main reasons in your opening sentence: hierarchical keys.



            Each group of keys is, uh, grouped. All the network related keys are network.something. All the http related keys are network.http.something and so on. This makes the key itself somewhat self-documenting what the value refers to. If one were to use the ini file style (which, to be clear, nothing would stop you from using these sorts of keys if you wanted) with [section] and key=value pairs, a given key may be ambiguous until the section is known. More over, the placement of keys in a file is important. Putting the ssl key in the [GUI] section is probably a mistake and may cause the key to be ignored. The a.b.c style should mean the order of keys in a file doesn't matter. If you read networking.http.ssl.key= it doesn't matter if the previous line was gui.background.color= or something else. The fully qualified key is named.



            Why is it so common? It's bloody useful, that's why. It's also easy for humans to read and understand (on a key by key basis) and edit.



            Where did it come from? I'd say C style structures which probably have a lineage I'm unaware of, and which have trickled down into many other programming languages as well. Setting a value in a C structure would be structure.property=value, and for nested structures structure.substructure.property=value and so on (though in real life, pointers would translate many of those dots into -> instead, but that's a minor trifle).






            share|improve this answer












            You've mentioned one of the main reasons in your opening sentence: hierarchical keys.



            Each group of keys is, uh, grouped. All the network related keys are network.something. All the http related keys are network.http.something and so on. This makes the key itself somewhat self-documenting what the value refers to. If one were to use the ini file style (which, to be clear, nothing would stop you from using these sorts of keys if you wanted) with [section] and key=value pairs, a given key may be ambiguous until the section is known. More over, the placement of keys in a file is important. Putting the ssl key in the [GUI] section is probably a mistake and may cause the key to be ignored. The a.b.c style should mean the order of keys in a file doesn't matter. If you read networking.http.ssl.key= it doesn't matter if the previous line was gui.background.color= or something else. The fully qualified key is named.



            Why is it so common? It's bloody useful, that's why. It's also easy for humans to read and understand (on a key by key basis) and edit.



            Where did it come from? I'd say C style structures which probably have a lineage I'm unaware of, and which have trickled down into many other programming languages as well. Setting a value in a C structure would be structure.property=value, and for nested structures structure.substructure.property=value and so on (though in real life, pointers would translate many of those dots into -> instead, but that's a minor trifle).







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Feb 18 '13 at 23:54









            SuperMagic

            93555




            93555








            • 3




              It's also like namespaces, the implication is that "." serves as a semantic separator.
              – mr.spuratic
              Feb 19 '13 at 0:02










            • Even better. What Mr. Spuratic said.
              – SuperMagic
              Feb 19 '13 at 0:07














            • 3




              It's also like namespaces, the implication is that "." serves as a semantic separator.
              – mr.spuratic
              Feb 19 '13 at 0:02










            • Even better. What Mr. Spuratic said.
              – SuperMagic
              Feb 19 '13 at 0:07








            3




            3




            It's also like namespaces, the implication is that "." serves as a semantic separator.
            – mr.spuratic
            Feb 19 '13 at 0:02




            It's also like namespaces, the implication is that "." serves as a semantic separator.
            – mr.spuratic
            Feb 19 '13 at 0:02












            Even better. What Mr. Spuratic said.
            – SuperMagic
            Feb 19 '13 at 0:07




            Even better. What Mr. Spuratic said.
            – SuperMagic
            Feb 19 '13 at 0:07


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f554036%2fwhy-do-so-many-programs-use-foo-bar-baz-qux-style-configurations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

            Alcedinidae

            Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]