[Web-SIG] WSGI adoption
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Tue Nov 30 00:12:02 CET 2004
At 04:15 PM 11/29/04 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>Or, if applied as a wrapper, you could decode all the strings after
>they've been loaded. Maybe that's what you were thinking?
Yes, I meant decode-after-load, specifying the encoding as one of the
>Extensibility also requires (IMHO) the layering of multiple configuration
>>The format SHOULD be:
>>* Easy for a GUI or other tool to edit or generate
>ConfigParser does poorly at this; if I was to do this with ConfigParser
>you'd really end up doing some sort of funny thing where you made a
>separate parser that would look for the point in the file you want to add
>a key, then do so, and modify ConfigParser so it kept track of the changes
>that were made to it; ConfigParser itself doesn't facilitate this at all.
I didn't mean "edit while preserving structure and comments", only "edit
while preserving semantics".
>>To me, the .ini syntax's only failing in these requirements so far is
>>that an encoding would need to be specified for strings.
>>Whether the ConfigParser library itself should be used or not, I don't
>>know. Its advantages are:
>>* It's been in the standard library a long time, meaning it's available
>>on the platforms of interest for WSGI
>Because no one is (or would) propose any alternative other than a
>plain-Python module, it's not a big deal to distribute it separately.
>Especially if there are version issues with old versions of Python and
>ConfigParser. (I'm not sure if there is, but if we want to enhance
>ConfigParser even slightly then there will be)
If we do anything other than just say, "Use ConfigParser", then IMO we need
to spell out the semantics, and create a clean implementation of those
>>* It allows string interpolation for the hackerly types who don't like
>People seem unhappy with this feature. At least there were several people
>in the python-dev who felt this way. The fact that there's a "more sane"
>version of this (SafeConfigParser) makes it seem like a questionable
>feature. It's also useful, so I'm not entirely sure what to make of
>it. But then if we go down that path, conditionals (#ifdef-style) are
>also very useful, but soon we need a whole programming language.
The specific use case I have in mind for that feature is merely avoiding
the repetition of lengthy base directory names. However, it's not a necessity.
>>Of course, I would be fine with us rigorously defining a format that met
>>One other possibility I can see, would be the Java properties file
>>format, or something similar to it.
>That's just an XML format, right? A painfully verbose format if I
>remember, even for XML.
I'm referring to this format, which is even simpler than ConfigParser, and
rather more rigorously defined, including the expected encoding and support
It does have some features that are less desirable, like case-sensitivity,
backslash-escapes, and the fact that its encoding is only friendly to
Latin-1 users. Also, it's likely to become quite verbose if a given
application or server defines lots of configuration keys. On the other
hand, it could be a good thing to discourage people from putting lots of
application configuration in the deployment file, instead of just using it
primarily to locate to the application's own configuration files.
More information about the Web-SIG