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
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
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.
--
Sid
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 als
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 Ph
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
lon
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 t
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
configura
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 23. Januar 2006 18:29:18 +0100 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And the intended audience of ZCML is a very different audience -
developers versus sysadmins.
This separation is artificial. I've never seen a single Zope
installation where a system admin
--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
configuration issue. There wa
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 configuration issue.
> There was always a Zope developer in charge to deal with configuration
> issues.
Those
1.
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 18:29 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Fred Drake wrote:
> > On 1/23/06, Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I suspect ZConfig was designed after the apache config format. I also
> >>suspect you haven't configured much Apache yourself.
> >
> >
> > Ind
--On 23. Januar 2006 19:06:02 +0100 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anyway, this whole discussion may be moot; Jim's proposal is rather hard
to interpret for people in this thread, so now I don't know anymore what
he's proposing. :)
I agree. I seconds Philipps proposal to simp
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 consolidating engines is the
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 23. Januar 2006 18:29:18 +0100 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And the intended audience of ZCML is a very different audience -
developers versus sysadmins.
This separation is artificial. I've never seen a single Zope
installation where a system admin
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> After thinking about it for a little bit, -1.
Same here.
I too am all for experimenting with new ways of expressing component
configuration. That can include the amount of what we configure in ZCML,
the semantics and the syntax. There should be no tabus. Before we go
expe
--On 23. Januar 2006 18:29:18 +0100 Martijn Faassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And the intended audience of ZCML is a very different audience -
developers versus sysadmins.
This separation is artificial. I've never seen a single Zope installation
where a system administrator had to care ab
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:26:05PM +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
|
| But
|
|
| xmas hohoho
| easter bunny
|
|
| Where is the logic in that format? It starts out looking like
| somethingML, but then isn't.
I suspect ZConfig was designed after the apache config format
Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/23/06, Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suspect ZConfig was designed after the apache config format. I also
suspect you haven't configured much Apache yourself.
Indeed, Apache configuration files were a major influence, and the
intended audience is substant
On 1/23/06, Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect ZConfig was designed after the apache config format. I also
> suspect you haven't configured much Apache yourself.
Indeed, Apache configuration files were a major influence, and the
intended audience is substantially the same.
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'd be in favour of switching zope.conf to an XML-based format as
well, personally.
That would be a separate proposal. It's not within the bounds of the
proposal under discussion.
No, I think the proposal under discussion has implications and
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
Also, I assume there's a DTD or XML Schema for the ZCML syntax, which would let
such tools validate and auto-complete ZCML syntax - a valuable way to save time
if you're not intimately familiar with the syntax.
I've done this in the past. A long time ago I created a
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:26:05PM +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
|
| But
|
|
| xmas hohoho
| easter bunny
|
|
| Where is the logic in that format? It starts out looking like
| somethingML, but then isn't.
I suspect ZConfig was designed after the apache config format. I also
suspect you haven'
Too add fire to the flames, I have always found ZConfigs format utterly bizzare.
A format like:
[yadayada]
xmas=hohoho
easter=bunny
I understand. A header for sections and keyword=value pairs under each
section. Fine.
Also makes sense to me. That's XML. Consistent and logical. Overkill
for ZC
On Monday 23 January 2006 10:13, Max M wrote:
> In a perfect world the configuration system would be self-documenting,
> so that it only would be possible to select "legal" configuration
> options/combinations.
ZCML, at least, is self-documenting. All its directives are described by
schemas and
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'd be in favour of switching zope.conf to an XML-based format as well,
personally.
That would be a separate proposal. It's not within the bounds of the
proposal under discussion.
Shane
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zop
Chris Withers wrote:
Personally, I think more people have used Apache than J2EE, and Apache
uses .conf files for its configuration...
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
Chris Withers simplistix.co.uk> writes:
>
> Rocky Burt wrote:
> > I was about to make that same point. Having to know how to use two
> > different configuration types makes getting started harder.
>
> ...well, I'll say it again, you have to know both of these anyway
Except ZConfig on/off swi
Chris Withers simplistix.co.uk> writes:
> Okay, just because everyone seems to be ignoring the point, I'll say it
> a third time
>
> You already have to know both .conf and .zcml to use Zope 3. I'd prefer
> that to only be .conf for exactly the reasons you give above.
>
> > I'm highly +1 for
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Not that XML will magically make it easier (thought it may make it more
familiar, and potentially be more compatible with existing toolchains),
but the big danger is that some day you'll want to look at some
tutorial or example or work with someone else's code (Chris W
Rocky Burt wrote:
I was about to make that same point. Having to know how to use two
different configuration types makes getting started harder.
...well, I'll say it again, you have to know both of these anyway ;-)
But, another few points that I'd like are:
- using (and only using) XML-bas
Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/22/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you understand that this proposal isn't proposing any new syntaxes?
Do I understand correctly that you're proposing adding a way to spell
ZConfig configuration schema using ZCML?
No, I'm proposing replacing the ZConfig
On 1/22/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you understand that this proposal isn't proposing any new syntaxes?
Do I understand correctly that you're proposing adding a way to spell
ZConfig configuration schema using ZCML?
> You do, of course, realize that we already have 2 configurati
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:15:43 -0800, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
-1 from me, I see this as being a way to have another split in how
things are done, and that different products will use different synta
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:15:43 -0800, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
-1 from me, I see this as being a way to have another split in how things
are done, and that different products will use different syntax. Having
products be
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:30:19 -, Rocky Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, there is another risk. If we support multiple formats then
that means
that a developer will have to understand all of them, because if he
wants to
use another package that uses format X but he is used to format
Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Friday 20 January 2006 07:36, Jim Fulton wrote:
>
>>See:
>>
>> http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
>>
>>Comments and volunteers welcome.
>
>
> I am +1.
>
> However, there is another risk. If we support multiple formats then that
> means
> that
37 matches
Mail list logo
