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

[Andreas Jung]

--On 5. März 2006 14:43:48 -0500 Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:

>  > 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.
>

Let's try to approach from the other side. We both agree at ZConfig sucks 
at some point. We need something else. The "something else" should be 
provide
a similar functionality as ZConfig:

  - some support for hierarchies

  - schema-based

  - validation

  - default values

  - local configurations, no global schema

In the first place such a framework would be independent of any input 
format. A ZConfig-style parser or a .INI parser could use such a framework 
to make configuration information available through a unique API. So the 
basic "problem" of this whole issue is how such a framework would look 
like, how a schema-definition would look like etc. Writing a parser that 
adopts a particular input format to the abstract configuration framework is 
at best an engineering challenge and the decision to use a ZConfig-style or 
an INI-Style configuration file format as default is like a personal 
preference for beer or wine (beer for the mass, wine for the power users 
:-))

-aj

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/attachments/20060305/666cc15f/attachment.bin