I really don't see how your YAML file is any more maintainable than Django's settings.py approach? If anything, I would argue that it is less maintainable, as you would have to maintain not only your YAML files moving forward, but also the code which transposes it into a settings.py.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Joan Miller <pelok...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's a disaster from the maintenance view point. If it were not so, > then people would not be proposing to refactor the settings as has > been made in Pinax, or from multiple posts so many times. > > This is nothing new. Many people dislikes that kind of configuration, > of the same that many people hates java by its fu**ing XML config. > files. > > On 10 mar, 13:49, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Joan Miller <pelok...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Whatever configuration system using variables of a language is a > > > disaster and it's going not maintainable as has been showed in Django. > > > > That's a pretty wild assertion to make without any evidence, and it's > > completely contrary to my personal experience. Care to back it up? In > > what way has Django demonstrated that using a programming language for > > configuration files is a disaster? > > > > Yours, > > Russ Magee %-) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
