[Web-SIG] WSGI and Configuration
ianb at colorstudy.com
Sun Nov 14 12:47:33 CET 2004
Robert Brewer wrote:
> Meh. I'm just speculating that specifying this within WSGI could hurt
> its adoption more than help. If we chose to force XML adoption, for
> example, I'd be unhappy. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. ;)
> It'd be fabulous to standardize.
I'm not looking for any standard, I'd just like some feedback on
conventions. As we start poking things into the WSGI environment, it
would be nice if we could agree on the API in there. At some future
point, maybe it will seem reasonable to standardize that.
I'm not even worried about configuration files at this point, though
it's hard to ignore them entirely, as different file formats produce
different output (e.g., .ini is fairly flat, vs. something like ZConfig
or YAML which can be more structured). Anyway, maybe we can support
multiple formats, or let the server load the configuration in whatever
way it feels fit, or whatever.
In regards to backward compatibility, I'm not too concerned about that.
Rather I would hope frameworks in the future will use this convention,
at least as an option. E.g., they could use an environmental variable,
native configuration files, etc., but if they see configuration values
in some agreed-upon location in the WSGI environ they'd use those as
well (maybe with precedence, or maybe as a fallback).
This way at least the user has a chance of keeping their configuration
files under control. If they are already scattered about, then they can
probably stay that way.
Ian Bicking / ianb at colorstudy.com / http://blog.ianbicking.org
More information about the Web-SIG