On Mar 1, 9:40 am, stuff4ash <ashwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not necesary advocating magic. But the need for a more robust (or > lets say, any) configuration management exists for many.
"Configuration management" is a fuzzy phrase that can mean many things to many people. I think it'd be more helpful to focus on specific problems and possible solutions. My critique was specifically of the suggestion you made for an automatic import of app-level settings.py, which introduces magical behavior for (AFAICS) no gain. I've certainly had the need for something like dbsettings or livesettings, though I've often addressed it with a separate app/model rather than trying to shoehorn django.conf.settings into a role it wasn't intended for. I also agree that for projects with many reusable apps (which describes all of mine), split settings are less headache to manage; I like Transifex' conf-directory solution and have proposed it for Pinax. It's not that the status quo is perfect and no improvement is possible; just that specific suggestions with concrete use-cases are more useful than handwavy claims about the need for some major new subsystem whose purpose and specific features are not clear. > I am very familiar with your setup, and its the best one in use I have > seen. but it has several shortcomings. So what shortcomings are relevant to you? > one of the few times that I wished django was more plonish. Which means what, in this case? Carl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.