[Web-SIG] WSGI and Configuration

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 10:19 PM 11/12/04 -0800, Robert Brewer wrote:
>Although I agree (and designed my framework that way), I know not every
>framework author thinks that way. At the least, won't some apps expect a
>single mapping, some apps expect ConfigParser sections (multiple peer
>dictionaries), and some full XML-style trees? Sounds like you're
>describing the second of those (which I also use). And some developers
>even prefer deployers to write Python scripts, it would seem.
>
>Meh. I'm just speculating that specifying this within WSGI could hurt
>its adoption more than help. If we chose to force XML adoption, for
>example, I'd be unhappy. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. ;)
>It'd be fabulous to standardize.

I'm suggesting that we have deployment "recommendations", not requirements.

Also, keep in mind that *all* of the variations you describe are 
nonetheless possible within the scope of my proposed approach.  For 
example, if an application takes a configuration parameter that is the name 
of a Python script, XML file, configparser file, etc.

The thing is, most applications or frameworks of any signficant scope 
already have some mechanism for keeping at least *some* of their 
configuration separate from code, even if the configuration is accomplished 
using a "configuration file" that is a Python script that just sets a bunch 
of variables.  So, most should be able to easily work within the 
"recommended" deployment approach.  (Assuming that we agree on one.)