RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jan 30 11:11:45 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060210.html

Vinay Sajip wrote:
> Fuzzyman <fuzzyman <at> voidspace.org.uk> writes:
>
>   
Hello Vinjay,
>> In the past there has been some discussion about a new module to replace
>> ConfigParser. Most notably at
>> http://wiki.python.org/moin/ConfigParserShootout
>>     
> [snip]
>   
>> It would be possible to extend to the ConfigObj API to be backwards
>> compatible with ConfigParser. This would bring the added benefits of
>> ConfigObj, without needing to add an extra module to the standard library.
>>
>> Well nearly. ConfigObj supports config file schema with (optional) type
>> conversion, through a companion module called validate. This could be
>> included or left as an added option.
>>
>> Anyway. If this stands a *chance* of acceptance, I'll write the PEP (and
>> if accepted, do the work - which is not inconsiderable).
>>     
>
> Personally, I'd prefer to have the different candidates in the Shootout be
> evaluated and a "winner" picked (I'm not sure who would do this, or when it
> would be done). 
Quite.

I'm suggesting an alternative that bypasses that tortuous and unlikely 
process. ;-)
> I'll readily declare an interest - I've implemented an
> alternative hierarchical config module (which is in no way backward compatible
> with ConfigParser), see
>
> http://www.red-dove.com/python_config.html
>
>   

I realise that there are several alternative modules available . 
Obviously my personal preference is ConfigObj (I'm not unbiased of 
course). :-)

Lack of complexity is the major feature I would tout here - I guess 
other people would have different priorities.

However, this not the only issue. Adding a new module, with a different 
API and possibly a different syntax for files, is a recipe for (some) 
confusion. Not to mention the difficulty of achieving a consensus on 
python-dev. (Again - ;-)

The resolution I'm suggesting means that people can continue to use 
ConfigParser, with major feature enhancements. *Or* they can migrate to 
a slightly different API that is easier to use - without needing to 
switch between incompatible modules.

I'm currently adding the ``ConfigParser.get*`` methods to ConfigObj 
(user request) and also adding full (straightforward) unicode support 
for reading and writing. These changes will be available in a beta 
release in the next few days.

Anyway, debate on the issue is welcomed.

All the best,

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/configobj.html
> Regards,
>
> Vinay Sajip
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060130/e709ee5b/attachment.html 

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060210.html below:

[Python-Dev] Extension to ConfigParser