Re: A way of life goes astray [was: Re: [Rest2web-develop] Changed all references to value "tests" into value "checks"...]

[Michael F. <mi...@pc...>]

Nicola Larosa wrote:
> This will probaby seem completely nuts to you, but please bear with me,
> I'll try to be concise, *and* offer you a way out of Config Obj *now*. :-D
> 
> 
> 
>>I think it makes the config files look more confusing. We use
>>indentation for nesting sections. *so*, you either use what I have done
>>so far, or you have to indent values *inside* a section.
>>
>>Mine (a section indented uniformly) :
>>
>>key = value
>>key2 = value2
>>   [section]
>>   key = value
>>   key2 = value2
>>       [sub-section]
>>       key = value
>>       key2 = value2
>>
>>    [section2]
>>    key = value
>>    key2 = value2
>>
>>Yours (values indented differently from their markers) :
>>
>>key = value
>>[section]
>>    key = value		# if you don't indent here
>>    key2 = value2	# there's no way to distinguish
>>    [sub-section]	# this sub-section from section2
>>       key = value
>>       key2 = value2
>>
>>[section2]
>>    key = value
>>    key2 = value2
>>
>>In your spec values have to be indented more than their section marker
>>which is equally confusing. Added to which implementing your spec is
>>*substantially* harder (for no gain IMHO).
> 
> 
> I beg your pardon in advance. I know you spent much time implementing your
> style, and then even changed it according to what I asked you (not the
> above). But what I'm proposing could substantially improve ConfigObj
> adoption chances, and simplify the code to boot.
> 
> Thing is, I thought about it, and the only comment I could come up with,
> about what I replied to this mail of yours, is: "What was I thinking?!?"
> What I asked you, and you already implemented (not shown above) is
> inconsistent and arbitrary. What you instead understood, and wrote above,
> of what I asked, is how things are usually written in an XML file, and in
> ZConfig pseudo-XML config format too. It *is* probably the best way...
> 
> 
> ...but maybe all of this is moot. I keep believing that using indentation
> in config files is a mistake, and I'm going to suggest a way to avoid it.
> 
> 
> Remember, config files have to go into the hands of not-completely-human
> beings called "sysadmins". ;-) You can be sure that most of them are
> *horrified* by the prospect of significant indentation (that's true even of
> most programmers that have not yet Seen the Light ;-) ). I really think we
> should leave them free to indent their config files, or not, as they well
> damn please. I believe that this would be a significant, and unnecessary,
> barrier to the future adoption of ConfigObj.
> 
> Let's now suppose instead that indentation is not significant: we still
> have the problem to signal that a subsection is nested inside the previous
> one. The XML, and ZConfig, way is to have a section closing marker: it
> is ugly, unnecessary, and incompatible with straight INI files.
> 
> A better way, I think, is to have an absolute level indicator in the
> section marker itself. The marker should be absent at the outer level, to
> keep compatibility with INI files, and should appear at inner levels. It
> could be a digit, or a number of asterisks, but maybe the simplest and most
> obvious thing is to multiply the square brackets, their number showing the
> absolut nesting level:
> 
> key = value
> 
> [level 1]
> key = value
> 
> [[level 2]]
> key = value
> 
> [[level 2]]
> key = value
> 
> [[[level 3]]]
> key = value
> 
> [level 1]
> key = value
> 
> Obviously it would be illegal to have a level 3 subsection directly nested
> inside a level one section.
> 
> We could have an indented-write flag, so that the user could choose to
> write out the config file in an indented shape:
> 
> key = value
> 
> [level 1]
>     key = value
> 
>     [[level 2]]
>         key = value
> 
>     [[level 2]]
>         key = value
> 
>         [[[level 3]]]
>             key = value
> 
> [level 1]
>     key = value
> 
> That would be for humans eyes only, the program would recognize any shape,
> since indentantion is not significant anymore.
> 
> 
> Again, I understand this means many changes to the code; I hope that it
> would also allow one to throw away a good portion of it, and that's akways
> a good thing. :-)
> 
> I'll make you a deal: if you agree about the above, but are horrified by
> the work needed to implement it, I propose that you *stop* working on
> ConfigObj right now, and let *me* implement the needed changes, under your
> direct control and supervision of each issue as it comes up, obviously. In
> the meantime, you could go back to work on rets2web, or whatever is waiting
> for your attention.
> 
> Once I complete the rewriting, you would step back in, add the still
> missing features, wrap it all up and release it into the world. :-)
> 
> I know it takes a good deal of trusting, but I would ask you for any
> structural change I'd make, and you have control of the repository anyway,
> so what have you got to lose? :-)
> 
> 

Hmmm... There wouldn't *need* to be many structural changes if you can
resist tinkering with the parts that don't need changing !


Will you *preserve* the indentation used in the config file ?

I've done a bit of browsing on the subject of nested hierarchies.
There's not a lot of consensus on the subject - and some of the
suggested alternatives are 'orrible.

Hmmm... your suggestion is less bad than other possibilities I suppose,
less extra markup than XML.

Ok if you must I suppose is the answer. Converting sys admins to normal
sanity is a better option though.... Markup by indentation is *good*.

Regards,

Fuzz
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python