Thanks for the reply.
> 2. Do we want to reuse its configuration syntax.
> The configuration format used by Paste Deploy is a simple
> standard format used by many many systems inside and outside
> the Python community.
I'm not objecting to the general ini-style format (do I read you
right?), but rather to the overloaded section names, the URI/name
syntax, the 'set' prefix, composite applications, etc. Paste
Deploy layers a whole mini-language on top of the ini format.
> Obviously, we can agree to disagree on this.
Sure, as long as Paste Deploy's config syntax is optional for
> 1. Can we agree on a standard set of entry points so that WSGI
> applications can be combined automatically? I think Paste
> Deploy provides at least good start on this.
> You haven't commented on the entry points defined by Paste
> Deploy. Do you have an opinion on adopting the entry-point API
> defined by Paste Deploy?
Ok, I need help: defining an entry point allows a plugin to
advertise that it can satisfy that entry point, but you still
need a configuration layer to actually wire it up, no? In which case:
1) What does "automatically" mean?
2) Aren't we back to discussing config syntax?
Web-SIG mailing list
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig