On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Jerome Renard <[email protected]> wrote: > James, > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:15 PM, James Pic <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Jerome Renard <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Context aware configuration files >>> --------------------------------- >>> >>> Creating a website requires to go through 3 different execution contexts: >>> >>> 1. dev >>> 2. staging >>> 3. production >>> >>> Each context has its own specificities. For example the database used for >>> each >>> of these 3 contexts is different. So this must be defined for each context >>> and >>> used according to the one the web application is actually running in. >>> >>> Those 3 contexts should be handled by the Configuration component, during >>> the >>> configuration directive merge process. >>> >>> Directory structure >>> ------------------- >>> >>> In order to provide a clean directory structure the Configuration component >>> should be able to read and understand a directory structure compared to this >>> one: :: >>> >>> /[..]/conf/ >>> |-- common >>> | |-- dev >>> | |-- prod >>> | `-- staging >>> `-- apps >>> |-- app1 >>> | |-- dev >>> | |-- prod >>> | `-- staging >>> `-- app2 >>> |-- dev >>> |-- prod >>> `-- staging >>> >> >> What if that's *not* what the user wants? Will he still be able to use >> the merger with simple ezcConfiguration objects? In that case i see no >> objections ;) > > Hmm I did not thought about that problematic, but I think that if we do our > job > correctly we should be able to use the merge mechanism on two files. What do > you think ? >
I though maybe we could just allow the user to merge configuration objects into another configuration object, which can then be used by your special manager, or normal managers, or normal writers and/or readers. Would that be simple and efficient enought? -- http://jamespic.com/contact Customer is king - Le client est roi - El cliente es rey.
