[Web-SIG] WSGI adoption
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Nov 26 01:42:48 CET 2004
At 11:22 PM 11/25/04 +0000, Alan Kennedy wrote:
> >> I'd suggest simply using plain Python as a configuration file format.
> >> It's just as easy to understand and far more flexible than
> >> ConfigParser.
>[Phillip J. Eby]
> > Flexibility of specifying the content isn't really a plus here. End
> > user editability, and *sectionability* are more important. That is, it
> > should be easy to have sections for the app, the web server, and general
> > WSGI information. For that matter, it should be possible for me to
> > include settings for both mod_python and Twisted in the same
> > configuration file, such that each one sees only the parts it cares
> > about. That way, an application developer can minimize the tuning
> > knowledge needed by an application deployer, for platforms the developer
> > cares about.
> > IMO, most of the content of the deployment configuration is either going
> > to be constants or filenames. For filenames, ConfigParser lets you
> > interpolate variables, so if you want brevity of expression you can
> > still do that without going to the full generality of Python.
>Since I don't have a specific proposal myself, I don't want to criticise
>But on reading the docs for ConfigParser, I think that it doesn't have
>encoding support(?). Meaning that configuring internationalised strings
>will be complex, which will definitely be problematic in a world where
>most filesystems acccept unicode file names, for example.
Hm. Interesting point. I hadn't thought about unicode filenames. I think
I'd need a better understanding, though, of how Python deals with string
filenames on a platform that uses unicode filenames, before I could suggest
a solution. It seems to me that such a solution could potentially be very
simple. Indeed, as long as the chosen encoding doesn't interfere with the
parsing of the configuration file itself, one could simply use a
configuration setting to define the encoding of the values.
>And lastly, it's got to be said: although we may dislike the awkwardness
>and rigidity of XML, it is almost universally understood, at all levels of
I think you *greatly* overestimate its ease of use for a naive user. It's
trivially easy to change a single character in XML and break the whole
thing, especially if you need to include a <, >, or &. People with HTML
experience don't understand why stuff breaks when you mix upper and lower
case. IMO, XML is simply not suitable for non-technical users, period.
More information about the Web-SIG