«

CPAN is full of various modules and frameworks for managing configuration
files: AppConfig, Config::IniFiles, Config::YAML, Config::Std, and so on.
Which ones do people here actually use the most? Which ones seem most
appropriate for which purposes (I doubt there's a "one size fits all")?
What do you think the strengths and weaknesses of the various modules are?

Don't worry, I'm *not* planning on writing Yet Another Configuration
System. I'm just not as familiar with the intimate details of working with
any configuration system as I should be, and I'd prefer to spend my time
studying the ones that I'm actually likely to encounter in existing code or
want to use in new code.

Eric Bohlman wrote:
> CPAN is full of various modules and frameworks for managing configuration
> files: AppConfig, Config::IniFiles, Config::YAML, Config::Std, and so on.
> Which ones do people here actually use the most? Which ones seem most
> appropriate for which purposes (I doubt there's a "one size fits all")?
> What do you think the strengths and weaknesses of the various modules are?

CPAN is also full of complete descriptions of these modules which
describe their capabilities. What part of those descriptions is
unclear?

I don't think anyone has ever done a survey to compile data on module
usage. Most programmers pick the one that fits their data model (.ini
file, XML, etc). I generally prefer Config::IniFiles (even on UNIX
systems). Don't discount Data:umper for config files.

wrote in
news: oups.com:

> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>> CPAN is full of various modules and frameworks for managing
>> configuration files: AppConfig, Config::IniFiles, Config::YAML,
>> Config::Std, and so on. Which ones do people here actually use the
>> most? Which ones seem most appropriate for which purposes (I doubt
>> there's a "one size fits all")? What do you think the strengths and
>> weaknesses of the various modules are?
>
> CPAN is also full of complete descriptions of these modules which
> describe their capabilities. What part of those descriptions is
> unclear?

Nothing. The documentation simply doesn't address the questions I raised,
which are not the sort of thing that purely technical documentation should
deal with anyway.

On Tue, 3Jan 2006 17:19:35 +1100, Eric Bohlman wrote:



 



Hi Eric




Config::General has become myfavourite, after I dabbled in the complexity of the set of modules yourefer to. It supports complex, hierarchical, formats, which ultimatelymeans you can do just about anything with that one module, rather thanhaving to switch later.



 



Within CGI scripts based onCGI::Application (my preferred basis), the same config files as used byConfig::General can be read with CGI::Application:lugin::Config::Context.Neat.



 



Config::Simple is very nice, too. Onecustomer asked me to use it because they had a Debian package for it, whichsimplified installation in their customers' machines.