Re: [O] Using Org-mode file format for storing configuration data

[Karl Voit]

* Daniel Clemente <address@hidden> wrote:
> El Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:04:25 +0100 Karl Voit va escriure:
>> 
>> I plan to implement a new weblog system that parses Org-mode
>> files and generates (static) HTML output. Yes, I am aware that
>> there are other solutions out there but I do not like them for
>> various reasons.[1]
>
>   Nice! I also don't like existing solutions and I was thinking on
>   writing some Python to do the export. But the complexities of
>   exporting are so well resolved in elisp that it's much easier to
>   invoke elisp code than to write your own in Python.

Sorry, I can not use the fabulous elisp because it would take me to
develop my blog SW for years - I'd have to learn elisp from scratch.
Surely, an elisp primer should not try to write something like a web
log as his first elisp project.

>> So for my new system, I am thinking of using Org-mode files for
>> writing (and parsing) the user-defined preferences.
>
>   I happened to be thinking the same two days ago.

>>   - In Python I have to parse a basic sub-set of Org-mode format
>>   anyhow. An additional parser would be more work to do.
>
>   Don't do it from scratch; there are already some parsers which
>   work. I tried: https://github.com/bjonnh/PyOrgMode

I did not start to evaluate current Org-parsers in Python but I am
very sceptic that I will be able to use such a parser. I plan to do
many "intelligent" transformations on the parser level such as
"id:heading42" ->
"http://my.bog.com/YYYY/MM/DD/articleofheading42.html"; and so forth.

But we'll see.

>> - Possible methods to store configuration/settings of a weblog system
>>   that scans Org-mode files to generate HTML:
>>   - in drawers: see below
>>   - in tables: see below
>>   - in tags: see below
>>   - other possibilities?

>    From the ones you say, I prefer property drawers. It's the most
>    DB-like and it's analogous to storing data (well, strings).
>    You don't need all the table benefits (reordering, exporting,
>    formatting, formulae, …).  Nor the tags benefits (search,
>    multiple tags, …)

Ack.

>> My focus is user friendly maintenance and overview including
>> in-line documentation of the preferences.
>
>   Of course, storing configuration in .org is very utopic (being
>   all .org), but I would prefer *not* to do it. I would use a
>   simple ~/.file.conf with some variables in the usual style:

> # a comment
> path=~/web/
> # where to export images
> images=~/web/images

OK, the usual INI format. I've done this a couple of times already.

>   I think this wins for usability and „friendly maintenance“,
>   since people know it and it works. And it allows you to define
>   many projects (e.g. check the configuration file for the program
>   unison).

I wanted to check, whether there is something in the idea of using
the same Org format for configuration as well. So far I tend to use
INI once more.

>   But I think it's more important to center efforts in developing
>   a good exporter web publisher. As you said, the current ones are
>   not powerful enough.

Sorry, there seems to be a misunderstanding.

My exporter will be a *very basic one*. At least for the first
versions.  The issues that drove me to plan my own new blog system
are related to completely other areas.

If you want to have a "good Org to HTML engine", you definitely
don't want to use my future blogging system.

-- 
Karl Voit