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.

Reply via email to