[Python-Dev] ConfigParser patches

Brett C. bac at OCF.Berkeley.EDU
Sat Oct 2 01:18:28 CEST 2004

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This reveals IMO a big mistake in thinking about configuration files.
> The most important user of a config file is not the programmer who has
> to get data out of it; the most important user is the user who has to
> edit the config file. The outrageous verbosity of XML makes the above
> example a complete usability liability.
> Now, if you're talking about config files that represent options that
> the user edits in a convenient application-specific options dialog,
> that's a different story; I think XML is well-suited for that; but I'm
> talking about the classic configuration file pattern where you use
> your favorite flat-file text editor to edit the options file. In that
> situation, using XML is insane.

I am thinking of the app-specific options dialog situation for XML and I do 
think that using XML for the classic style of editing the flat file by hand is 

My thinking on the XML idea is that people do write apps where the whole thing 
is behind a GUI and thus XML makes good sense.  So why not make there lives a 
little easier by giving them a basic API?

But it is not a make-or-break thing for me so I am willing to let it go if it 
is deemed not worth the effort.

>>Is this worth working on now or wait until Py3k?
> I see no advantage in waiting until Py3K; this is not  a language
> issue and there is no problem with having several library modules (as
> long as it's clear which one is deprecated).

OK, so how do people want to proceeed with this?  PEP?  Shootout?


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list