[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Web-SIG] more comments on Paste Deploy

Subject: Re: [Web-SIG] more comments on Paste Deploy
From: Chad Whitacre
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:09:37 -0500

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 
whatever-we're-building. :^)

 > 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
[email protected]
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/mailarch%40xy1.org

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>