At 05:30 PM 12/6/01 -0800, Tavis Rudd wrote:
>I've attached a copy of the old .webkit_config_annotated file
>translated to the proposed format. It seems to work with all
>versions of Python, not just 2.1 and up. This file contains all the
>settings and is more complicated than the average user will need so
>I've also attached an example of what typical config might look like.
>
>The SettingsContainer baseclass is used to make sure that settings
>that are in fact meant to be classes aren't handled as
>SettingsContainers. In practice a shorter name might be better.
>
>Finally, I've attached some simple functions that can be used to get
>settings out of the SettingsContainers recursively and turn them into
>dictionaries.
I like it. I'd like it even better if there were some way to get rid of
the SettingsContainer base class which seems to clutter it up a
bit. Couldn't we just ignore any classes that start with underscores, and
treat all other classes as setting containers? This would be consistent
with Python's use of "from module import *" which ignores things that start
with underscores.
As far as naming conventions, these are valid Python modules/packages, so
.py would probably be best. But it would be nice to be able to identify
config files from their filename, so it could look like this for a
multiple-file configuration:
Configs/
__init__.py
AppServerConfig.py
ApplicationConfig.py
...
or in a single-file format:
WebKitConfigs.py
In other words, things that contain multiple configurations end in
"Configs.py" and things that contain single configurations end in "Config.py".
The WebKit launcher would accept either a "Configs" directory, or a
single-file "XXXConfigs.py" on the command-line, and would do the right thing.
--
- Geoff Talvola
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
