[Web-SIG] more comments on Paste Deploy

Jim Fulton jim at zope.com
Wed Mar 7 11:34:15 CET 2007

On Mar 5, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Personally, I don't care for the Paste Deploy syntax -- frankly  
> it's almost barbaric.  :)

I don't mean to pick on you, but I really *hate* comments like this.   
I don't like softer forms like "complicated" or even "makes me  
uneasy".  It would be far more helpful if you provides specific  
criticism.  I'd appreciate it if we would all just ignore statements  
like this and, preferably, stop making them.

>   But the concept of being able to specify stacks, routes, and  
> configuration in a plain text format that includes package  
> information for automated deployment is nonetheless an important one.


> A couple years back, I started writing a library to parse a more  
> sophisticated, Python-like syntax to do the same sorts of things,  
> but only got as far as the parser.

A few years back, we created a library to parse more sophisticated  
apache-like syntax and I wish we hadn't.  The ini/config format is  
pretty standard and, IMO, really quite adequate.  I'm convinced that  
we don't really need another configuration format, at least not at  
this level.


> Anyway, all that aside, I think it would be fantastic if we could  
> come up with some "universal file format" for single-file  
> configuration and deployment of applications (including auto- 
> install of all needed eggs),

Me too. That's one of the reasons I created zc.buildout.  But that's  
a big commitment.  With buildout, I can use a single configuration  
file and have recipes that generate lots of little configuration  
files as necessary, for lots of applications like databases, ldap  
servers, and web applications that will never use a single  
configuration file on their own.  I'd be happy if we could tackle a  
simple configuration format that handled the kinds of things Paste  
Deployment handles now and maybe a little more.  I'll get my cake and  
eat it too with buildout. :)

> that could get stdlib support and ultimately hosting company  
> support.  This would actually give us a leg up on even PHP for ease- 
> of-deployment.

Aside from the universal configuration file issue, I think this would  
be a terrific thing for us to focus on.  Something I hear a lot is  
how much easier PHP applications are to deploy to hosting providers.   
I would *love* it is Python had a similar story, even if only for  
smaller applications.

I'd love to get some input who know a lot about what makes deploying  
PHP apps so easy.


Jim Fulton			mailto:jim at zope.com		Python Powered!
CTO 				(540) 361-1714			http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation	http://www.zope.com		http://www.zope.org

More information about the Web-SIG mailing list