[Web-SIG] WSGI: Another level of indirection

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Tue Aug 2 06:46:19 CEST 2005

At 11:28 PM 8/1/2005 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>Maybe a way to handle this configuration is to put in another level of
>abstraction, sad as that is.
>I'm thinking configuration files could have something like PEP 263's
>encodings, except that it would be an indication of who knows how to
>build the WSGI application from the file.  So it might look like:
># -*- wsgi-build: paste.wsgi_deploy:DeploymentConfig -*-
>Which would work with the experimental stuff I mentioned before.  It
>should also work with .ini files, Python source, and probably other
>configuration file syntaxes.  At some point perhaps we'll come up with a
>standard (aka default) builder, but this could remain useful despite

Now you're *really* scaring me.  Honestly, there's no difference between 
this proposal and saying that we'll use "#!" lines to operationally 
determine the format by specifying an interpreter for it.  There's really 
no *abstraction* taking place here.

>   It also means I can go forward with this right now and still be
>future compatible.

I can understand the desire, but I think it would be a bad idea to give 
this any kind of official standing or allow it to warp the process of 
getting to a workable deployment standard.  Better for you to develop your 
format(s) and try to make them that convinces everyone they're worth 
standardizing on, knowing that if you fail, your format will be a dead 
end.  :)  That should provide you with extra motivation to make it a really 
good format for the rest of us.  ;)

I haven't had a chance to have a serious look in detail at your last format 
proposal, but hope to soon.

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list