On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Niklas Lindström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I gave this some thought and came to the same conclusion as Christian > -- it's easier to work with the same namespace, and the 'fab_'-prefix > feels explicit enough.
Yea, as I said, I'm sold on a single namespace at this point :) > Personally I do like `config`, I think of all in it as "configuration > variables". `vars` is also a builtin btw, and `var` didn't feel as > readable as `config`. `environment` or `env` might make sense though, > albeit I use that name for noting the target environment (staging, > production). I think that's rather conventional, so I'd prefer > `config` over e.g. `env` I think. You're right about 'vars' and 'env'; but I still maintain that 'config' isn't the right word -- it is *not* all configuration variables! If I need to store the output of e.g. run(stuff) and use it later on, that's definitely got nothing to do with Fabric configuration. It's just a normal variable (albeit one that can be referenced in another command). What if we keep set/get around (changing set to let, as previously proposed) and continue to have them be the main user interface to the internal Configuration object? This also avoids the inconsistency of setting with config(x=y) but getting with config.x or config['x']. See my upcoming reply in the other email thread for more related ideas :) -Jeff _______________________________________________ Fab-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
