One thing i forgot, in case anyone is at this point: the reason i chose ConfigObj over ConfigParser is that it allows subsections.
matt On 2/22/2011 4:01 AM, Ian wrote: > On 21/02/2011 22:08, Matt Funk wrote: >>> Why? >> mmmh. not sure how to answer this question exactly. I guess it's a >> design decision. I am not saying that it is best one, but it seemed >> suitable to me. I am certainly open to suggestions. But here are some >> requirements: >> 1) My boss needs to be able to read the input and make sense out of it. >> XML seems fairly self explanatory, at least when you choose suitable >> names for the properties/tags etc ... >> 2) I want reproducability of a given run without changes to the code. >> I.e. all the inputs need to be stored external to the code such that the >> state of the run is captured from the input files entirely. >> >> > Hi Mark, > > Having tried XML for something similar, I would strongly advise > against it. It has been nothing but a nightmare. > > XML is acceptable for machine to machine communication where the two > sides cannot agree a common > language in advance or they can't coordinate format changes. Even then > it is slow and verbose. > > Use the config module if the configuration is simple to moderately > complex. > > Consider JSON or Python (source) if your requirements are really > complicated. > > Regards > > Ian > > > > > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
