On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 1:40:13 PM UTC-4, Michael Merickel wrote: > > > Thanks - I have not. I imagine they would depend on plaster instead of > pastedeploy and then advise people to install the appropriate binding for > whatever wsgi config format they are using... Such as plaster_pastedeploy > to keep things working as they were before. > Some other tools that might benefit from plaster support would be alembic - > at least in my own workflow. :-) >
Yep. uWSGI, for example, supports a large number of config file formats. integrating against plaster would drop their needs down to supporting one. As user of Pyramid though, I'm stuck on `.ini` files because it's the only consistent thing our deployment options support. (even though I hate them) imho, Plaster is an absolutely killer idea and package for platform/framework developers. I think there's a very good shot a couple of other framework/server developers will be open to supporting or even fully migrating onto it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pylons-discuss/c3faa83c-5cdc-4e90-996c-c1c4e815d99c%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
