<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7651.59">
<TITLE>RE: [Web-SIG] [Proposal] "website" and first-level conf (was: morecomments on Paste Deploy)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Chad Whitacre wrote:<BR>
> First, we define a "website" on the filesystem as a<BR>
> Unix-y userland with, at minimum, the following:<BR>
><BR>
> etc/<foo>.conf<BR>
> lib/python<BR>
><BR>
> Second, we adopt a simple ini-style format for <foo>.conf,<BR>
> which handles low-level process config. This file would<BR>
> then point to a second, framework-specific configuration<BR>
> layer.<BR>
<BR>
I really don't see why we need a standard scaffolding (folder<BR>
arrangement) just to read in a config file. Why can't the<BR>
location of the site config file be passed as an argument<BR>
to the invocation script? Keep in mind that some platforms<BR>
will not allow deployers write access to any folders in which<BR>
application code is kept...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Robert Brewer<BR>
System Architect<BR>
Amor Ministries<BR>
fumanchu@amor.org</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>