On 5/7/09 3:01 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote: > Martin Aspeli wrote: >> Well... in any case, this discussion is somewhat moot since only >> framework authors should ever need to write directives or grokkers. > > In that case, you're disagreeing with my position. Let me state it > differently: if only framework authors write ZCML handlers / grokkers, > then application authors will be forced to violate DRY in various > situations. To solve that, the invitation to write new kinds of > configuration directives should be extended to application authors, not > just framework authors.
I agree. I think both writing a grokker and writing a ZCML directive are probably both a little too hard for the casual application developer. In particular, writing a ZCML directive is actually quite hard; there are no docs and you need to understand the way zope.schema works. The way ZCML works is far too overdesigned, and the overdesigned pieces are *badly* designed. I think it would be more approachable (and therefore "better" on some axis) if a) ZCML didn't use schemas (declarative is not a win here, as you still need to write imperative code in the handler, and if you *did* want declarative stuff, just let the handler call it), b) writing a simple handler was documented better and more availably and c) handlers actually just *returned* something rather than being called for their side effects. It's also completely bizarre that a ZCML handler has no easy access to the registry being populated except via getSiteManager(). It's a mess. Writing a grokker is "easier" (at least the first one you write) than writing a ZCML directive because you don't need to understand zope.schema to write a grokker. But typically grokkers will just turn around and call an existing ZCML handler if one exists for the same purpose, I think. - C _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repozefirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev