Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives ready for review

2006-04-01 Thread Jeff Rush
Tres Seaver wrote: Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: The case of class/factory is arguable, I admit. However, there I'm just following the rule of a) defining things in Python and registering them in ZCML and b) use more basic ZCML directives, less special ones. I think we could argue the

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives ready for review

2006-03-21 Thread Dominik Huber
Tres Seaver wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Dominik Huber wrote: I really appreciate your effort in all other cases, but in this case I think its not a simplification. At least in case of class/implements it is. I'm

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives ready for review

2006-03-20 Thread Dominik Huber
Philipp, I really appreciate your effort in all other cases, but in this case I think its not a simplification. The today's arrangement of class subdirectives is not an evil at all. We use all offered subdirectives (including implements and factory) heavily in our use cases. IMO It's

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives ready for review

2006-03-20 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Dominik Huber wrote: I really appreciate your effort in all other cases, but in this case I think its not a simplification. At least in case of class/implements it is. I'm merging two directives, class/implements and five:implements into one. The case of class/factory is arguable, I admit.

[Zope3-dev] Re: Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives ready for review

2006-03-20 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Dominik Huber wrote: I really appreciate your effort in all other cases, but in this case I think its not a simplification. At least in case of class/implements it is. I'm merging two directives,

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives ready for review

2006-03-20 Thread Lennart Regebro
On 3/20/06, Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we could argue the following equally well: if you find a directive unuseful, *just don't use it*. Register *new* directives (perhaps in a new namespace, if you want to reuse the names) which do your simpler / cleaner thing.

[Zope3-dev] Re: Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives ready for review

2006-03-20 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Tres Seaver wrote: I really appreciate your effort in all other cases, but in this case I think its not a simplification. At least in case of class/implements it is. I'm merging two directives, class/implements and five:implements into one. The case of class/factory is arguable, I admit.

[Zope3-dev] Re: Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives ready for review

2006-03-19 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: If no one objects to the branch as it is, I will merge it on the weekend. Done now. ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Zope3-dev] Re: Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives ready for review

2006-03-17 Thread Martin Aspeli
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:56:54 -, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before this merge goes through, I would propose the following steps: Take the document and edit it so it's a clear guide for what you should do with broken directives. I.e. for browser:localUtility we want to

Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives ready for review

2006-03-17 Thread Martijn Faassen
Martin Aspeli wrote: On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:56:54 -, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before this merge goes through, I would propose the following steps: Take the document and edit it so it's a clear guide for what you should do with broken directives. I.e. for