Shane Hathaway wrote:
FWIW, I still hate ZCML for the following reasons:
Everyone seems to agree on the direction suggested here:
http://www.z3lab.org/sections/blogs/philipp-weitershausen/2005_12_14_zcml-needs-to-do-less
Indeed, while I strongly agree with all of this, I think it's
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 23. Januar 2006 15:22:27 -0500 Andrew Sawyers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 18:51 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
This separation is artificial. I've never seen a single Zope
installation where a system administrator had to care about Zope
Andrew Sawyers wrote:
1.
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 18:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip]
And the intended audience of ZCML is a very different audience -
developers versus sysadmins.
I'd have to say, I belived quite the opposite. There are specific
references to Admins being part of
Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/21/06, Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are really attributes of foo. In ZCML, this might have been:
foo
x=1
y=2
/
Except this breaks down in the case of ZConfig multikey elements,
which allow configuration like this:
foo
x = 1
x = 2
Martin Aspeli wrote:
No, I heard you the first time. But whilst zope.conf has been around for ages,
it has not been used for the purpose that ZCML is now used.
Really? I thought ZCML was used for configuration of a web
application/server. .conf has been used exactly that with Apache for a
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Except ZConfig on/off switches are very easy to understand just by reading the
zope.conf file. That doesn't mean that same syntax would make managing
something
as complex as the type of wiring ZCML is currently used for any clearer,
though.
No, but that's the realm of
Max M wrote:
Personally I abhor these configuration languages.
I can never figure out what all the options are, and I allways suspect
that I am missing something clever in some undocumented cornercase
somewhere.
Well, ZCML is already self documenting, as far as I can see.
Zope.conf would
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:13:33AM +, Chris Withers wrote:
| Zope 3 then introduced ZCML, which
| no other web server on the planet uses ;-)
I think you are mistaken. If ZCML is a variant of XML, then Zope 3 is
not alone. I've been told that IIS 7 does use XML for it's
configuration.
--
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Sure, but it's not my point. I don't think sysadmins, familiar with
Apache configuration syntax, are the audience for ZCML. Developers are.
Therefore, an important benefit of ZConfig syntax, familiarity from
Apache, goes away in case of ZCML.
Well, I can only speak for
Stephan Richter wrote:
I'll note that I commonly make browser the default namespace in browser
packages.
And _I'll_ note that it's one of the things in your book that threw
me... I had to do a double take to figure out where all these new
directives had come from when I eventually noticed
On 1/24/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it irksome to have to type them at the top of ever file. Is there
no way that they could be pre-bound in the XML parser? That way you'd
only need to inlcude them if you wanted to rebind them...
Even if we could avoid it at a technical
Fred Drake wrote:
I find it irksome to have to type them at the top of ever file. Is there
no way that they could be pre-bound in the XML parser? That way you'd
only need to inlcude them if you wanted to rebind them...
Even if we could avoid it at a technical level, it means that what
we're
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
However, I think one namespace for ZCML is enough.
+1
Big +1 to all of Philipp's suggestions.
context
I have a fair amount of experience with Zope2 and am learning Zope3...but
with half an eye at Ruby on Rails and Spring/Hibernate. I
On 1/24/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
However, I think one namespace for ZCML is enough.
Are you sure?
Perhaps it's reasonable to use a single namespace for all the ZCML
directives defined as part of the Zope 3 release.
It would seem that the current default mechanism is poorly
suited to providing default values for non-immutables.
For example:
class IBar( Interface ):
a =
Object( schema = IFoo,
default = Foo() )
But if a Foo is not
immutable this doesnt make sense. (In my case, I want a to
be
That's a fair question.
context
This is a pattern I have learned by using Docbook 5.0, which is another
one of those
_lets_rewrite_an_established_technology_to_address_longstanding_issues_
releases.
Norm uses the RelaxNG annotations namespace[1].
I like the design principle RelaxNG uses for
Shaun Cutts wrote:
It would seem that the current default mechanism is poorly suited to
providing default values for non-immutables. For example:
Mutable is a better way to say non-immutable. :-)
class IBar( Interface ):
a = Object( schema = IFoo, default = Foo() )
But if a “Foo” is
On Jan 24, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/24/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
However, I think one namespace for ZCML is enough.
Are you sure?
Perhaps it's reasonable to use a single
On 1/24/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
FWIW, me too. I'm no XML guru (as Fred will attest ;-) ) but reading
the namespaces on an XML file seems like basic XML procedure.
Well, the reading of them is the lesser of my two complaints...
I find it irksome to
Shane,
I considered 'default_factory' myself It seems good, but it
complicates the logic internally. For one thing, logically, we'd have to
also have 'missing_value_default' (unless we decree that missing values
have to be not-non-immutable, ah... immutable).
A further thought on where to
Hello,
I'm currently writing a test in a README.txt and I want to make sure that
returned object a is of type zope.app.x. How can I test that?
Thanks,
Florian
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
Comments and volunteers welcome.
I like this proposal. It is likely to reduce the total amount of code.
However, I want to be sure that
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:16:13 -, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Commercial development tools typically have pretty decent XML support,
and if
you were to write e.g. a ZCML editor as an Eclipse plug in, being able
to rely
on existing XML components would be much easier.
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2006-1-23 18:27 +0100:
...
For one, ZConfig is a
syntax not very well known, even granting its similarity to the Apache
configuration language, while XML is very well known.
Come on:
The only syntactic part of ZConfig is: there are
keys with values and sections
Fred Drake wrote at 2006-1-23 09:56 -0500:
On 1/23/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I said earlier, I think XML is wrong for configuration for exactly
this kind of reason... element-based is right for this type of config,
it's why Apache uses, it's why Zope 2 uses it, and it's why
Christian Lück wrote:
From a lerners point of view (for example me) the thematic organization
is a pro too: The z3 beginner will probably need the 'zope' and
'browser' namespaces at first. Browsing apidoc zcml namespaces lets your
knowledge grow fast, because you get structured information.
Am Dienstag, 24. Januar 2006 21:07 schrieb Florian Lindner:
Hello,
I'm currently writing a test in a README.txt and I want to make sure that
returned object a is of type zope.app.x. How can I test that?
I've tried:
Failed example:
homeFolder #doctest: +ELLIPSIS
Expected:
[Florian Lindner]
I've tried:
Failed example:
homeFolder #doctest: +ELLIPSIS
Expected:
zope.app.file.file.File object at ...
Got nothing
I've also tried it without the #doctest
Why do I get just nothing?
That's expected if (and only if) `homeFolder` is bound to `None`.
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
Hello,
I'm refactoring a application developed for Zope 3.0, and in the
proccess of doing that, one of the things I wanted to do is to remove
some hardcoded xslt pipeline and instead use a WSGI 'middleware' or
'filter'.
Cool
So.. I was planning to use paste.deploy to
Dieter Maurer wrote:
What I like with ZConfig is its schemas and especially the
ability to define datatypes.
I hope that similar things can be achieved with ZCML.
Of course it can, ZCML is defined in terms of Zope 3 schemas.
Florent
--
Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) Director of
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Christian Lück wrote:
From a lerners point of view (for example me) the thematic organization
is a pro too: The z3 beginner will probably need the 'zope' and
'browser' namespaces at first. Browsing apidoc zcml namespaces lets your
knowledge grow fast, because you get
Chris Withers wrote:
(and if we can get it down to one, we don't have to specify it at the
top of the file... yay!)
Not really. Specifying no namespace at all is not the same as specifying the
namespace of prefix-less elements. Even with one namespace the declaration of
that namespace is still
32 matches
Mail list logo
