On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Joan Miller <pelok...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's a disaster from the maintenance view point. If it were not so, > then people would not be proposing to refactor the settings as has > been made in Pinax, or from multiple posts so many times. > > This is nothing new. Many people dislikes that kind of configuration, > of the same that many people hates java by its fu**ing XML config. > files.
I must be seriously missing the point here, because I can't reconcile your comments with my experience. I can't speak to what is going on internal to the Pinax community, but your claim that the suggestion has been made in "multiple posts so many times" certainly doesn't reflect my recollection of django-dev and django-users activity. I will openly admit that there is an issue with Django configuration -- specifically, that Django doesn't make a distinction between application settings and operations settings. In an enterprise context, this can cause difficulty because the operational deployment of a project shouldn't affect the configuration of applications in a project, and vice versa. There can also be issues of data hiding -- for example, developers shouldn't know production database passwords. I fail to see how using YAML, XML, or any other text-based format improves anything from a "maintenance" point of view. It's Yet Another Text Format For Configuration. The only difference is that *ML it isn't as flexible as Python, because you don't have the capabilities of a programming language. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- 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.
