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

[Chris Withers]

Stuart Bishop wrote:
> the Z3 configuration. This was with Zope 3.0 and integrating our config with
> the Z3 config was quite problematic.

What were the problematic bits?

> We lost a fair bit of flexibility doing it this way. Field validation needs
> to be done the ZConfig way.

How would you prefer to do it?

> There are issues with non-required fields in
> non-required sections giving us grief. 

Can you describe these a little?

> There seem to be namespace issues,
> despite being hierarchical (eg. we have <librarian><librarian_server>
> instead of just <librarian><server>, it seems because <server> is already
> used by Z3 so we can't call our section that).

Hmm, that's odd :-S

> having are our fault, I would also call that a problem with ZConfig as the
> documentation is not detailed enough to match ZConfigs complexity. 

Yep, I'd agree with that. ZConfig is a tool that's very easy to misuse :-/

> So +1 I guess. Although I personally would prefer using XML, as I think it
> will be more readable for complex configurations as it is better able to
> represent heirarchies and provide more flexibility to developers.

My main gripe with the .ini format is the lack of hierarchy, but then I 
worry that with XML we'll suffer from an overly complex schema...

config sucks, we should all just go to the pub...

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
            - http://www.simplistix.co.uk