[Web-SIG] more comments on Paste Deploy
chad at zetaweb.com
Sat Mar 3 04:29:27 CET 2007
Thanks, Jim and Ian, for bringing this discussion online.
I have two hesitations with Paste Deploy:
1. The configuration syntax is really complex. I'm much more
comfortable with multiple simpler config files.
2. I'm not clear on how Paste Deploy's abstractions map to the
filesystem. What does my website root look like?
With Aspen, I went with a well-defined filesystem layout (a
Unix-style userland) and multiple configuration files (in etc/),
each with their own simple syntax.
So if you publish a blog app called SuperBlog, let's say, you
would mount it in etc/apps.conf, e.g.:
SuperBlog would configure itself with etc/superblog.conf, a file
with a simple syntax described in your SuperBlog documentation.
SuperBlog also has access to Aspen's global config through a
I suggest that a system with multiple simple config files is much
more scalable than a single complex config file syntax. Imagine
if all of Unix were configured using a single syntax!
Also, I don't think we should underestimate the importance of the
file/executable distinction. A standard "file format" for a
website enables a wider tool ecosystem to evolve: interactive
shells, debuggers, test runners, skel systems, configuration UIs.
It also makes any given website easier to comprehend and maintain.
So in short, I give Paste Deploy a -1 as our main configuration
system. I'd like the first-line config to be much simpler, with
Paste Deploy available as an optional extra.
More information about the Web-SIG