--On 7. März 2006 06:51:00 -0500 Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

My $.02:  I suspect it might be better to just use XML than  configparser
as a ZConfig replacement.  The config format is a  stretch under CP due
to the lack of hierarchy.  I'm beginning to  think the "don't make admins
use XML" argument should die.  Everybody  knows how to edit XML nowadays,
and if you need hierarchy, its  familiarity is tough to argue with.

XML as config format must die :-) ZConfig has the right balance between
a stupid INI format and XML.

The weak point at this discussion (as I mentioned earlier) is that we are discussion about a format and not about a flexible configuration framework that solves the problems at ZConfig has. The format used at the end to feed the framework with data is pure syntactical sugar.

The idea to use schemas makes sense especially because schemas seem to provide everything you need right now. The only thing I have no clue about is how one would define hierachies through schemas (possibly through nested schemas)?

Writing a parser for some kind of INI format or ZConfig-style parser is an engineering task for an average programmer..I think we should discuss the framework and not a particular format (I agree with Dieter: it's unreadable
and only applicable to small configuration files).


Attachment: pgpFDjuYpV0Op.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to