[Zope3-dev] Discussion: Configuration vs. Configuration

[Shane Hathaway]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> For services and other things that live in ++etc++site, there are two
> different concepts that are currently both called "configuration".
> 
> One is what *I* would call configuration: for example, the
> ErrorLogging service has a "control panel" where you can configure how
> many exceptions to keep and several other options.  The explanatory
> text at the top of the page even uses the word "configure".  Many
> other objects also have such configurations, e.g. caches, database
> adapters, and the text index.
> 
> The other form of configuration is of course the "configuration
> manager".  E.g. /++etc++site/default/ConfigurationManager/.  What is
> configured here is the "external usage" of a service, utility, cache,
> db connection, and so on.  Exactly what the configuration parameters
> are here depends on what kind of object, but at minimum there's the
> "activation state" (Active, Registered or Unregistered) and often a
> permission; sometimes also a name and/or an interface, and/or a
> component path.
> 
> The problem as I see it is that many object support both types of
> configuration, so there is plenty of opportunity for confusion
> (e.g. in documentation, and when talking about configuring these
> objects).
> 
> I fear that it is going to be difficult to document things if we stick
> with using "configuration" for both concepts.  Personally, I can't
> help thinking of the former kind as configuration (the concept is not
> unique to Zope), so I'm looking for a different word to use for the
> latter -- but I'm open to other solutions.

As I understand it, in the first case you're configuring a component, 
and in the second case you're configuring the way a different component 
relates to the component you're looking at.  I feel like both of these 
are clear examples of configuration, but the difference is in what 
you're configuring.  Maybe the second case is "site configuration"?

Shane