Re: [Fab-user] Completed suggestions: load and config (#1, #2, #3)

[Jeff Forcier]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Niklas Lindström <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> I gave this some thought and came to the same conclusion as Christian
> -- it's easier to work with the same namespace, and the 'fab_'-prefix
> feels explicit enough.

Yea, as I said, I'm sold on a single namespace at this point :)

> Personally I do like `config`, I think of all in it as "configuration
> variables". `vars` is also a builtin btw, and `var` didn't feel as
> readable as `config`. `environment` or `env` might make sense though,
> albeit I use that name for noting the target environment (staging,
> production). I think that's rather conventional, so I'd prefer
> `config` over e.g. `env` I think.

You're right about 'vars' and 'env'; but I still maintain that
'config' isn't the right word -- it is *not* all configuration
variables! If I need to store the output of e.g. run(stuff) and use it
later on, that's definitely got nothing to do with Fabric
configuration. It's just a normal variable (albeit one that can be
referenced in another command).

What if we keep set/get around (changing set to let, as previously
proposed) and continue to have them be the main user interface to the
internal Configuration object? This also avoids the inconsistency of
setting with config(x=y) but getting with config.x or config['x'].

See my upcoming reply in the other email thread for more related ideas :)

-Jeff