Ian Bicking: the old part of his blog


I thought I'd make note of wsgikit.config, a configuration loader. I haven't actually started using it in WSGIKit yet, but I've been using for the configuration of this blog. It has a few features that set it apart from some of the others.

Big to-do's:

If you're curious, the lazyloader module is the place to start looking.

Created 18 Jan '05


Ian wrote:

Better syntax for nested options than config[section][key]

I ran into the same issue. In my config format, I found that I never needed a depth greater than 2, so the following works pretty well (as a method of the Application object):

def config(self, branch=None, leaf=None, default={}):
    """config([branch], [leaf], default={}) -> tree, branch, or leaf.
    If branch is not specified, the entire config dict is returned.
    If branch is specified, but leaf is not, the requested branch
        is returned (or default if it does not exist).
    If branch and leaf are specified, the leaf value is returned (or
        default if either the branch or leaf does not exist).
    In the case where either branch or leaf are not found, the config
    tree is not modified--you simply get back empty or default values.
    if branch is None:
        return self._config
    if leaf is None:
        return self._config.get(branch, default)
    return self._config.get(branch, {}).get(leaf, default)

I don't think it would be too hard to convert to n-depth.

# Robert Brewer

I was thinking of allowing either a sequence of keys, like config[section, key] or config.get((section, key)), or maybe somehow allow dotted names, like config.get('section.key') (since usually these are constants anyway). But sometimes I do want keys that contain dots, so it's not a complete plan.
# Ian Bicking

Might users find it more consistent if dots were always required between name components - e.g. admin.(stuff) - rather than being omitted when the component is quoted with brackets? Quoted fields in a CSV file are still delimited by commas even though the field boundaries could be inferred from the quotation marks alone.
# Hamish Lawson

Dots are allowed in those positions, but I don't like the way they look, so they aren't required.
# Ian Bicking