Yes. I think that's what I suggesting.
Even though the ini files are nice when it comes to readability.
On 1/3/06, Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Are you suggesting that we should make all of the config files .py
> files? That's not unreasonable, actually. Then people can do dynamic
> things wherever they want (and we rid ourselves of that "no space in
> position 1" problem). It's *slightly* more verbose doing the config in
> python, but most people are just manipulating pre-existing values
> anyhow.
>
> Kevin
>
> On 1/3/06, Elvelind Grandin <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What I meant was that as I understood you the new config file would be
> > python but the old cfg's would be ini
> > On 1/3/06, Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 1/3/06, Elvelind Grandin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like a great idea, but i'm not sure it's that good to use two
> > > > different config formats (py and ini).
> > >
> > > Hmm... there certainly could be an ini file that goes along with your
> > > project for deployment-independent settnigs. The advantage to a py
> > > file is that it would also handle the case of any computed settings
> > > that are required. We *could* have both, but that starts to seem
> > > overkill.
> > >
> > > Kevin
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > cheers
> > elvelind grandin
> >
>
>
> --
> Kevin Dangoor
> Author of the Zesty News RSS newsreader
>
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> company: http://www.BlazingThings.com
> blog: http://www.BlueSkyOnMars.com
>
--
cheers
elvelind grandin
- [TurboGears] Re: Dynamic setting of config options (e.g.,... Elvelind Grandin
