[Web-SIG] more comments on Paste Deploy

Joseph Tate jtate at rpath.com
Mon Mar 5 23:23:09 CET 2007

On Monday 05 March 2007 16:19:14 Ian Bicking wrote:
> Joseph Tate wrote:
> > I find that multiple files gives you a nice way to override defaults.  As
> > long as the files are read in a way that's predictable and documentable,
> > and ultimately appear as if read from a single file (and possible
> > displayable via some diagnostics link in an application).
> Allowing this sort of thing means that the application carries around a
> complete config object of some sort, which I rather dislike -- it allows
> for smart applications, but it makes it much harder to understand the
> configuration and any possible side effects.  If we resolve the
> configuration down to something more limited (as the Paste Deploy entry
> points do) you can't really reconstruct the config from there.
> *Something* could still reconstruct the config (an alternate config
> loader, via logs, via debug settings, etc), just not the application
> itself.
> This is somewhat problematic for applications that have particularly
> complex config requirements, or want to support self-configuration.  The
> best solution that I can think of with Paste Deploy in that case is to
> just use the Paste Deploy configuration to point to the "real"
> configuration.

I agree.  That's why my app has a /config link that spits out the "effective" 
configuration.  The overridden config is a hard requirement, I'd love to hear 
alternative solutions.  /etc/php.d, /etc/httpd/conf.d and that ilk come to 
mind as examples of this kind of thing.

Joseph Tate
Software Engineer
rPath Inc.
(919) 851-3984 x2106

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list