Re: [Configobj-develop] Finally getting to use ConfigObj :-)

[Fuzzyman <fuz...@vo...>]

Nicola Larosa wrote:
> After many months, we are actually starting to use ConfigObj on the job.
> Expect many comments and fixes soon. :-)
>
> Let me also introduce my esteemed colleague, Francesco Del Degan.
> Francesco, please subscribe to this mailing list, and start firing away. :-)
Fixes :-o
 
Are you maligning our code ;-)
 
Anyway, that's good news.
 
I'd like to minimise any future API growth as much as possible.
 
I'd like to *consider* removing the following methods :
 
   encode
   decode
   rename
 
I do know of at least two users who use the ``walk`` method, so we 
probably need to keep it. One possibly uses the rename method. Hmmm...

After Guido's comments I'd even consider *not* subclassing dict, and 
only implementing those mapping protocol methods that are actually 
appropriate. Ripping stuff out isn't my *immediate* priority though.

I've also wondered if there might be any use for a 'ConfigObj-lite' ? 
ConfigObj now weighs in at around 115k, which is quite hefty if all you 
want to do is *read* config files.

It occurs to me that it would be possible to create a much smaller 
'reader only' which doesn't support validation or writing. That would be 
especially true if some of the dictionary methods were also removed. It 
wouldn't be very much work as it would be almost straight 'ripping-out' 
of code.

Anyway, this all me just 'thinking-aloud'. Feel free to comment or not. :-)

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml