[dev] hooks

[Chuck Hagenbuch]

Quoting Eric Rostetter <eric.rostetter at physics.utexas.edu>:

> Sounds interesting.  Maybe use the xinetd example also?  The hook file
> could include a disabled/enabled setting, or we could use the file name
> also for this (hook.disabled, hook.enabled, or something like that).  If
> using a file name convention, we don't have to include/read all them, only
> the ones matching the pattern.  Could save some cpu/disk time.

I don't think this makes sense since we're talking about potentially having
to include many multiple files on every single page load. File includes are
expensive.

-chuck

--
Charles Hagenbuch, <chuck at horde.org>
The alligators were there, too, in a bathtub inside the house.