On May 30, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Hans Lellelid wrote: > I've griped about this before, but I think the biggest (only?) problem > that comes up repeatedly for us w/ Pylons is the inaccessibility of > these "special" globals from tests (without using response/request > objects). Stacked object proxies. I dream of a day (or a fork) when > these are either a thing of the past, or disabled by default. (Mike > has given me some pointers in the past, but I still maintain that > writing tests shouldn't be so hard. -- and one shouldn't be forced to > use the WebTest framework, which IMO is inadequate for services > applications.)
While my latest changeset does address the testing of these, there is still the issue of how to handle reading configuration information. Of course, the other real issue is that the INI format is rather limited. I don't think anyone is thrilled with the thought of writing XML files, so I've been looking at YAML as an *optional* configuration format. That is, you could choose to configure your application in pure Python, as it is now, or ask the configuration object to read in a YAML file and configure things appropriately. This will also help Pylons extensibility as extensions that have their own basic config can let you read it into the active Pylons app with just one command. So, there's the question of loading configuration, which I think I just addressed, and then there's the stacked object proxies (SOP's) themselves. In Pylons 1.1, I plan on making the SOP's fully optional. Until then though, I would definitely like to make it much easier to test Pylons applications. It'd also help for making it easier to run models and such in other non-web scripts. Cheers, Ben -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
