Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: offlineimap: July 2002:
Re: Configuration file

Re: Configuration file

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: offlineimap@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Configuration file
From: Martijn Pieters <mj@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:56:24 -0400

On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:34:23PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Well, I may disagree with you on this one but I do agree with you on
> everything else.  I see the Python syntax, especially the lambdas, as a
> great asset because it makes OfflineIMAP much more versatile and powerful
> than it otherwise would be.  Where this sort of syntax is used, I have tried
> to copiously document it with lots of examples of common use, so people that
> do not know Python should be able to just uncomment and modify the
> configuration that applies to them.  That's the goal, anyway.

Sorry, I forgot to add that I thought the lambda stuff had to stay. :) The
config manager will offer easy defaults. More on that in another thread when
I have more time.

Note that documentation may make things a bit easier, but a more human
readable section naming convention will do a far better job of aiding the
unexperienced user.

> Yes.  So we have to wonder, would ui.wxPython.Blinkenlights,
> ui.Tk.Blinkenlights, ui.MacOSX.Blinkenlights want to share the same section
> or have different ones?  (It's conceivable that they might all be present
> simultaneously)

In this case, they probably would share the same options. And what is so
wrong about inventing extra sections like 'UI Blinkenlights MacOSX'? Just
choose a namespace system and stick to it, and preferably use spaces as
delimiters between name segments.

We can tweak the config writer to sort sections alphabetically, with
no-space names first. The namespaces will make sure everything is grouped

My argument that the naming convention ties you forever to a package
structure still stands. :)

> Incidentally, I chose Tkinter for the GUI stuff only because it's most
> ubiquitous.  Sending Python commands to an embedded Tcl interpreter that in
> turn uses the Tk library is not my idea of the right way to do it.  I still
> don't understand why they didn't just use the Tk C binding, sigh.  At least
> it's thread-safe these days.

I believe it is the layout managers and config system that are written in
Tcl. Should ask Ken Manheimer when he returns from holiday, or Fred Drake
when he pops in again.

Martijn Pieters
| Software Engineer  mailto:mj@xxxxxxxx
| Zope Corporation
| Creators of Zope

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]