[Web-SIG] WSGI adoption

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 10:06 AM 11/29/04 -0200, Rodrigo Dias Arruda Senra wrote:
>[ Peter Hunt <floydophone at gmail.com> ]:
>--------------------------------------------------------
> > Regarding configuration file format, I still think that we should use
> > Python source, as it is easy to parse and easy to specify advanced
> > configuration information. This has already been shown to work: just
> > look at distutils setup scripts.
>
>Since Zope came up recently in this thread, have anybody considered
>using ZConfig as a configuration engine ?
>
>I see the following benefits:
>
>  - code reuse
>  - rich configuration options
>  - extensible
>  - easy to use
>  - supports XML sections (not compulsory)

ZConfig isn't a bad format overall, but it does have a rather serious 
problem for the deployment format: it expects to have a fixed schema, which 
means there's not really a good way to have a file that contains 
information for one server to use, and another server to ignore, while 
there's also information for the app that the server ignores and vice versa.

You can of course hack its schema mechanism to accommodate such a format, 
but at that point you've also removed all of the validation and processing 
that it does, so you might as well go back to plain .ini format, which at 
least has a parser in the standard library.