Phillip J. Eby wrote: >> Another option is we pass in a single dictionary that represents the >> entire configuration. This leaves room to add more arguments later, >> where if we use keyword arguments for configuration then there's really >> no room at all (the entire signature of the factory is taken up by >> application-specific configuration). > > > YAGNI; We don't have any place for this theoretical extra configuration > to come from, and no use cases that can't be met by just adding it to > the configuration. Early error trapping is important, so I think it's > better to let factories use normal Python argument validation to have > required arguments, optional values, and to reject unrecognized arguments.
I think in practice I'll always take **kw, because I otherwise I'd have to enumerate all the configuration all the middleware takes, and that's impractical. I suppose I could later assemble the middleware, determine what configuration the actual set of middleware+application takes, then check for extras. But I doubt I will. And even if I do, it's incidental -- I'm quite sure I won't use using the function signature for parameter checking. >> Another part of the API that I can see as useful is passing in the >> distribution object itself. > > > Which distribution? The one the entry point came from? It already > knows (or can find out) what distribution it's in. I mean like: [wsgi.app_factory] filebrowser = paste.wareweb:make_app Where paste.wareweb.make_app knows how to build an application from filename conventions in the package itself, even though the paste.wareweb module isn't in the project itself. -- Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
