On 5/7/09 5:28 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote: >> Or just make it simple, and return a tuple of (callback, >> discriminator). Or a sequence of like [(callback, discriminator), >> (callback, discriminator), <etc>], as you say. > > True. Is it time to write repoze.configuration? ;-)
Ha.. sadly, already done, mostly: http://docs.repoze.org/plugin/config.html http://svn.repoze.org/repoze.plugin/trunk/ I haven't really expected it to see the light of day but it does indeed work, eschews zope.schema and returns those tuples. >> But it would have been easy for the ZCML support in zope.component to >> use a different kind of "context" that just had the registry as an >> attribute. Then you could actually use ZCML configuration to populate >> a *particular* registry, instead of "whatever happens to be returned >> by getSiteManager()". Use of getSiteManager() causes apps to need to >> do a number of suspect thread locking hacks now if they want to run >> two otherwise unrelated zope.configuration+zope.component-using >> packages in the same process. It's becoming more frequent that there >> isn't "one global registry" (it should have never been >> zope.component's job to advertise one, but instead an application that >> *uses* zope.component might choose to do so). > > I agree. However, I hesitate to give up the idea of using the > configuration machinery to populate other kinds of registries in > addition to the zope.component registry. If we gain the ability to > populate the zope.component registry in a non-global way, I want to be > able to populate other registries in a non-global way too. :-) Well, sure, handlers that are used in a config file are free to do as they like; but handlers that do want to populate some registry should probably just have scope-local access to it. If there are two registries that need populating, just attach both of them to the context. Or if a handler doesn't use it, just reach out and populate some module scope thing or whatever. > One way to do that would be to add one more indirection to your plan. > Instead of storing the zope.component registry as an attribute of the > configuration context, the configuration context could hold an attribute > with a dictionary of named registries. So handlers would grab the > component registry as "context.registries['zope.component']". Sure, that'd work. But I think one thing to keep in mind is that it's not really that common for arbitrary directives to be used together, so maybe explicit namespacing is not necessary and a directive can just assume the registry it wants is attached to the context under some well-known name. Then if some system wants offer the use of two directives that populate separate registries, it can just manufacture and offer up a context that has both on it. - C _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
