[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: Use ConfigParser for High-Level Configuration

[Chris McDonough]

My $.02:  I suspect it might be better to just use XML than  
configparser as a ZConfig replacement.  The config format is a  
stretch under CP due to the lack of hierarchy.  I'm beginning to  
think the "don't make admins use XML" argument should die.  Everybody  
knows how to edit XML nowadays, and if you need hierarchy, its  
familiarity is tough to argue with.

- C

On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:16 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:

> Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote at 2006-3-5 18:17 +0100:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Looking at your examples (especially the long one), I find the  
>>> ZConfig
>>> version much easier to read.
>>
>>
>> While ZConfig allows you the describe related material together
>> and without indirections, the ConfigParser format forces you
>> to introduce indirections and to spread related definitions
>> over a longer area.
>
> Yes, this was my concern with it, too. Though the decouple spelling
> obviously also has advantages as you can configure a server once and
> then just refer to this server configuration from several instance
> configuration.
>
> Philipp
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-dev mailing list
> Zope3-dev at zope.org
> Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/chrism% 
> 40plope.com
>