On Saturday 03 March 2007 15:54:41 Ian Bicking wrote: > Chad Whitacre wrote: > > I suggest that a system with multiple simple config files is much > > more scalable than a single complex config file syntax. Imagine > > if all of Unix were configured using a single syntax! > > There's other cases where having both options is nice. Because Paste > Deploy doesn't fold config files together, you can also reuse them from > different contexts. (A more common way to use multiple config files -- > what ConfigParser.load supports -- is to just overlap all the sections, > usually totally clobbering each other. I like this more explicit way of > bringing in configuration, which treats configuration like a composable > set of configurations instead of a system where all the configuration > files are pretty tightly bound to each other.)
I find that multiple files gives you a nice way to override defaults. As long as the files are read in a way that's predictable and documentable, and ultimately appear as if read from a single file (and possible displayable via some diagnostics link in an application). -- Joseph Tate Software Engineer rPath Inc. http://www.rpath.com/rbuilder/ (919) 851-3984 x2106 _______________________________________________ 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