Well, the config module is WAY better than what we had before, which was not declarative at all. But, I'm all about incremental improvement, so if there are things that can be done to continue to improve it I'm totally supportive of that.
I'm not particularly opposed to the base_config.whatever = True because explicit is better than implicit, and making things pretty is a lower value to me than making them non-magical. But if there's a nicer non-magical declarative way of doing things, I'm not opposed to using it. ;) --Mark Ramm On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Christoph Zwerschke <[email protected]> wrote: > > The config system of TG2 is separated into *.ini config files and > *_cfg.py" files in the config directory. > > The idea is that deployment specific settings should go to the *.ini > files and application specific settings to the *_cfg.py files and that > the deployer should have an easy life with *.ini files while the > application developer can be burdened with py code files. > > However, I don't think it's only the application developer who wants to > customize the applications settings; otherwise he could have hard coded > these settings. The deployer may just as well want to change certain > application settings. > > So I think there should be another *.ini file for application specific > settings. The *_cfg.py file is really ugly with all of these repetitions > of "base_config.". Any chance that this gets improved in 2.1? > > -- Christoph > > > > -- Mark Ramm-Christensen email: mark at compoundthinking dot com blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
