[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.python

Draft PEP on RSON configuration file format

Patrick Maupin

3/1/2010 2:10:00 AM

All:

Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to
manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started
work on a new configuration file parser.

I call the new format RSON (for "Readable Serial Object Notation"),
and it is designed to be a superset of JSON.

I would love for it to be considered valuable enough to be a part of
the standard library, but even if that does not come to pass, I would
be very interested in feedback to help me polish the specification,
and then possibly help for implementation and testing.

The documentation is in rst PEP form, at:

http://rson.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/dr...

Thanks and best regards,
Pat
61 Answers

Paul Rubin

3/1/2010 2:56:00 AM

0

Patrick Maupin <pmaupin@gmail.com> writes:
> I have started work on a new configuration file parser....
> The documentation is in rst PEP form, at:...

Noooooooo.... not another... there are too many already. :-(

-1

Steven D'Aprano

3/1/2010 3:19:00 AM

0

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:09:30 -0600, Patrick Maupin wrote:

> All:
>
> Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to
> manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started
> work on a new configuration file parser.
>
> I call the new format RSON (for "Readable Serial Object Notation"), and
> it is designed to be a superset of JSON.

Wait a minute... if JSON is too hard to edit, and RSON is a *superset* of
JSON, that means by definition every JSON file is also a valid RSON file.
Since JSON is too hard to manually edit, so is RSON.


> I would love for it to be considered valuable enough to be a part of the
> standard library,

Come back when you actually have MANY users other than yourself using
this is real-world projects. Until then, it is too early to even consider
adding it the std library. Python comes with batteries included, but not
experimental batteries that aren't even built yet, let alone proven that
they work.


--
Steven

Chris Rebert

3/1/2010 6:31:00 AM

0

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:39 PM, John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> wrote:
> Patrick Maupin wrote:
>>
>> All:
>>
>> Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to
>> manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started
>> work on a new configuration file parser.
>
>   You're not supposed to edit those formats manually.

Huh? True for XML /perhaps/, but for the others I quite disagree.
Perhaps you could explain your reasoning?

Cheers,
Chris
--
http://blog.re...

John Nagle

3/1/2010 6:40:00 AM

0

Patrick Maupin wrote:
> All:
>
> Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to
> manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started
> work on a new configuration file parser.

You're not supposed to edit those formats manually.

John Nagle

Patrick Maupin

3/1/2010 4:09:00 PM

0

On Feb 28, 9:18 pm, Steven D'Aprano > Wait a minute... if JSON is too
hard to edit, and RSON is a *superset* of
> JSON, that means by definition every JSON file is also a valid RSON file.
> Since JSON is too hard to manually edit, so is RSON.

Well, Python is essentially a superset of JSON, with string escape
handling being ever so slightly different, and using True instead of
true, False instead of false, and None instead of null. YMMV, but I
find it possible, even probable, to write Python that is far easier to
edit than JSON, and in fact, I have used Python for configuration
files that are only to be edited by programmers or other technical
types.

> Come back when you actually have MANY users other than yourself using
> this is real-world projects. Until then, it is too early to even consider
> adding it the std library. Python comes with batteries included, but not
> experimental batteries that aren't even built yet, let alone proven that
> they work.

I know that it is too early to be included in the library. But there
is a chicken-and-egg problem. PEP 1 says you should circulate a
design for discussion before writing code...

I fully expect this sort of negative feedback, fully expect that it
will be years (if ever) before the code makes it into the standard
library, and yet I offer the design for your perusal, just on the slim
chance that I might get a few constructive criticisms on the actual
design to go along with all the silly strawmen reductio ad absurdum
arguments by people who aren't even going to bother to read the thing.

Best regards,
Pat

Patrick Maupin

3/1/2010 4:28:00 PM

0

On Mar 1, 12:39 am, John Nagle <na...@animats.com> wrote:
> Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > All:
>
> > Finding .ini configuration files too limiting, JSON and XML to hard to
> > manually edit, and YAML too complex to parse quickly, I have started
> > work on a new configuration file parser.
>
>     You're not supposed to edit those formats manually.
>
>                                         John Nagle

Opinions on that will vary, and as the saying goes, "everybody is
entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts."

I submit as fact that there are many initialization files in each of
these formats, and I would be willing to place a wager that the
majority of the people on this list have used a text editor to modify
at least one file in this category at least once.

IOW, in my opinion (and it is only an opinion, not a fact), you are
actually helping to make the case that a better format is needed.

Regards,
Pat

Robert Kern

3/1/2010 5:14:00 PM

0

On 2010-03-01 10:08 , Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:18 pm, Steven D'Aprano

>> Come back when you actually have MANY users other than yourself using
>> this is real-world projects. Until then, it is too early to even consider
>> adding it the std library. Python comes with batteries included, but not
>> experimental batteries that aren't even built yet, let alone proven that
>> they work.
>
> I know that it is too early to be included in the library. But there
> is a chicken-and-egg problem. PEP 1 says you should circulate a
> design for discussion before writing code...

Ignore it. That comment really doesn't apply to this case. That's for things
that only make sense in the language or standard library, like context managers.
For libraries like this, Steven's summary is correct. It needs to have a useful
life as a third party package for a few years before you should propose it for
inclusion into the standard library. By all means, distribute a design document
for comment before you implement things; it's a reasonable practice. But don't
bother with a PEP yet.

--
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco

Patrick Maupin

3/1/2010 5:35:00 PM

0

On Mar 1, 11:13 am, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ignore it. That comment really doesn't apply to this case. That's for things
> that only make sense in the language or standard library, like context managers.
> For libraries like this, Steven's summary is correct. It needs to have a useful
> life as a third party package for a few years before you should propose it for
> inclusion into the standard library. By all means, distribute a design document
> for comment before you implement things; it's a reasonable practice. But don't
> bother with a PEP yet.

So, I went and re-read PEP 1, and in the fine print it directs me to
PEP 2. Mea culpa -- I though I understood the PEP.

Nonetheless, the fact that I created what I call a "PEP draft" seems
to have had more read into it than I meant. I will bear this in mind
when I start future projects. I have a couple of projects, and
contribute to another, which in no way should wind up in the standard
library. But I find the lack of a good, up-to-date, configuration
reader in the library to be an issue, which is why I had the temerity
to try to start a discussion on what a good standard configuration
file reader should be.

Yes, I would like to create something compelling enough to go into the
standard library. No, I don't expect it to wind up there for a very
long time, if ever. BUT, at the same time, following the PEP format
is very valuable for my project. It forces me to think more deeply
about the problem I am solving and it forces me to write down some
documentation. Really, it's no more burdensome than any other similar
useful template.

Or, to put it another way, it is my goal (which I may or may not be
smart enough to reach) to write a module that anybody would want to
use; that is good enough to put into the standard library. Whether
this happens or not, one useful tool to help the module down that path
(and produce a better module for me and other users even if it never
becomes part of the standard library) is to think about what it takes
to get into the standard library. Part of this involves writing the
PEP. Writing a PEP is a good exercise; the format itself helps me to
focus on important issues.

So I was writing the contents of the PEP anyway, just for me. The
real question, then, is when to release the PEP (vs. the code). I've
already got some coding done, but it is not yet good enough to share,
and if there is anybody else out there grappling with the same issues
at this time, I would prefer not to go into production with it until
they have had a chance to look over the design and offer insights and
criticisms.

Best regards,
Pat

Paul Rubin

3/1/2010 6:04:00 PM

0

Patrick Maupin <pmaupin@gmail.com> writes:
> it is my goal (which I may or may not be smart enough to reach) to
> write a module that anybody would want to use;

But you are working on a solution in search of a problem. The really
smart thing to do would be pick something more useful to work on. We
don't need another configuration language. I can't even say "yet
another" because there's already a "yet another" called yaml.

Robert Kern

3/1/2010 6:05:00 PM

0

On 2010-03-01 11:34 , Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:13 am, Robert Kern<robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ignore it. That comment really doesn't apply to this case. That's for things
>> that only make sense in the language or standard library, like context managers.
>> For libraries like this, Steven's summary is correct. It needs to have a useful
>> life as a third party package for a few years before you should propose it for
>> inclusion into the standard library. By all means, distribute a design document
>> for comment before you implement things; it's a reasonable practice. But don't
>> bother with a PEP yet.
>
> So, I went and re-read PEP 1, and in the fine print it directs me to
> PEP 2. Mea culpa -- I though I understood the PEP.
>
> Nonetheless, the fact that I created what I call a "PEP draft" seems
> to have had more read into it than I meant. I will bear this in mind
> when I start future projects. I have a couple of projects, and
> contribute to another, which in no way should wind up in the standard
> library. But I find the lack of a good, up-to-date, configuration
> reader in the library to be an issue, which is why I had the temerity
> to try to start a discussion on what a good standard configuration
> file reader should be.
>
> Yes, I would like to create something compelling enough to go into the
> standard library. No, I don't expect it to wind up there for a very
> long time, if ever. BUT, at the same time, following the PEP format
> is very valuable for my project. It forces me to think more deeply
> about the problem I am solving and it forces me to write down some
> documentation. Really, it's no more burdensome than any other similar
> useful template.

Certainly. The PEP format is a useful one. I've used it myself for some numpy
design documents. But can you see why people might get confused about your
intentions when you call it a draft PEP and post it to python-dev? If you stop
calling it a PEP and stop talking about putting it in the standard library,
people will stop being distracted by those issues.

--
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco