On 2/27/07, Mark Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But the real question (as Kevin noticed, in spite of my obtuseness) is how > we deal with the tree/app config split. Mounting sub-applications in trees > is one of the main things we need at my work, it would be great if we could > work this out in a way that let's us be backwards compatable with our old > config file format.
Though I haven't been a 100% fan previously, hearing from Jim Fulton that Zope is moving toward PasteDeploy just makes me that much more certain that using PasteDeploy as the deployment config file format is a good way to go. The format was generally functional, but it seemed (from working with it last year) that there were some places where it could be smoother. It will probably be possible to maintain some level of backwards compatibility. But, if we decide to make a move like that we'd likely want to switch over entirely to standard INI files so that all of the config files use the same format. It may also be possible to perform automated conversion between old formats and new. In truth, this shouldn't be that bad since we don't fully support app composition in TG 1.0 as it is. Kevin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
