[Zope3-dev] RFC: Use ConfigParser for High-Level Configuration

[Jim Fulton]

Andreas Jung wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 5. März 2006 13:56:38 -0500 Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> The right way would be to refactor ZConfig and decouple it in a
>>> reasonable way from its dependencies.
>>
>>
>> I think this would be a major rewrite.
> 
> 
> Possibly but I don't consider that to be a strong argument for introducing
> a weaker mechanism.>

I don't think that the complexity of ZConfig is justified by the power of
hierarchical sections.

>> They have to deal with it now, but now it's really hard.  I think that a
>> simpler
>> approach would allow much simpler configuration support.  To extend
>> ZConfig now,
>> you have to create XML schema descriptions, and have deep knowledge of 
>> how
>> ZConfig works.
>>
>> Why do you think it's better to have to create a monolithic schema for 
>> all
>> applications bits that want to use the configuration file, rather than
>> letting
>> individual applications define how to read their own data independently?
> 
> 
> A monolithic schema is of course a problem. I am sure it could be solved 
> by refactoring ZConfig.

Yes.  That's why I tried to propose reimplementing ZConfig on top of the
ZCML engine a few weeks ago.  If that was the only goal, then I think
this would be the way to go.

>> There could still be frameworks to make handling configuration data
>> easier.
>>
> 
> I agree but I really dislike the idea of flattening a hierarchical 
> structure
> into a INI-like format. Having /x/y/z as section names looks both funny 
> and somewhat unprofessional.

Obvoiously, this is a matter of taste.  Many people are put off by even
the hint of XML in ZConfig.

 > The format looks as if would have been
> invented by a first grader.

It probably was. ;)

 > There is no question that ZConfig has the
> problems you described.  But I consider such a flat representation as
> poor and a step back
> instead of a step forward (independent of the effort needed to simply 
> and refactor ZConfig).

I agree, however, I think that there are other benefits of a move to
ConfigParser that far outweigh this disadvantage.

Jim

-- 
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