[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 myself, but as a developer, I'm more familiar with .conf format and prefer it over xml for this kind of configuration... While many developers may be familiar with Apache config syntax, not all are, and a random developer is more likely to be familiar with XML anyway. ...hmm, not sure I agree, don't have any evidence either way though :-/ cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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. -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems, LLC. http://enfoldsystems.com ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 also likely be self documenting is Jim's proposal is implemented... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 Philipp's proposal, not Jim's ;-) I'd be in favour of switching zope.conf to an XML-based format as well, personally. Well, I'd prefer this to having two config file formats, but I'd prefer it less that using .conf for both ;-) 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. Developers familiar with J2EE, .NET etc. are used to XML configuration files, and have editors and tools they are comfortable with. Being able to use those same tools (oh, it's just XML) may ease the learning curve a little. 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. While I agree with all of this, I've never seen anyone actually do this for anything Zope-related so far. ZPT is a prime example where this was touted as a good reason to go for an XML-based attribute language, but no-one ever developed these tools. As such, I'm tempted to cry "yagni" on XML-because-its-easier-for-tools... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 long long time, and for Zope, just a "long" time ;-) The kind of thing people do with ZCML are an order of magnitude more complex than the things people do in zope.conf. Really? Ever written Apache rewrite rules? What is true is that there are now two books in print and a growing body of documentation that explains ZCML. If you're suggesting that Zope deprecates ZCML and starts using ZConfig for component wiring, you're going to turn that documentation from useful to confusing, We're talking about some pretty minimal differences... Becomes: title Posting class .posting.Posting permission zope.ManageContent viewAddPosting.html permission zope.ManageContent nametitle namebody and you're going to alienate a few more developers (and honestly, Zope 3 doesn't yet have that many to alienate). This hasn't stopped big changes in Zope 3 so far, and I kinda like that... to find out if they want to bet on it for their next big development project, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it? And for what reason? Because you don't personally like the aesthetics of XML? Actually, because I want to lower barriers to entry. Apache is the most prevelant web server on the planet. It uses .conf format. Zope also uses .conf format, and has done for years. Zope 3 then introduced ZCML, which no other web server on the planet uses ;-) So no, this is NOT just about the aesthetics of XML... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 the ZCML audience. See specifically http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/Zope3Book/zcml.html which says: 1. While the developer is certainly the one that writes the initial cut of the configuration, this user is not the real target audience. Once the product is written, you would expect a system administrator to interact much more frequently with the configuration, adding and removing functionality or adjust the configuration of the server setup. System administrators are often not developers, so that it would be unfortunate to write the configuration in the programming language, here Python. But an administrator is familiar with configuration scripts, shell code and XML to some extend. Therefore an easy to read syntax that is similar to other configuration files is of advantage. Let's just say that I don't think ZCML is there yet... While I can believe a sysadmin can make changes in ZCML configuration on the specific advice of a developer, and in some other specific instances, I don't think ZCML in general is very transparant for sysadmins at all, and perhaps it shouldn't be. I do believe there's value in even the specific, limited instances of non-developers making changes in ZCML however, and also believe the situation is better than when you'd have to tell a sysadmin to go change some Python code. I would argue that the apache config is comparable to Zope 3's ZCML - in that, if I wanted to enable/disable some feature typically included with Apache, say CGI support - this is done in Apache's config files. Granted I understand there are some differences, but it is worthy to note that there is some cross-over between Apache's configuration file audiences and Zope 3's ZCML files and ZConfig (zope.conf). I've worked with both ZCML and the Apache configuration language, and while I agree there is some overlap, ZCML is generally not about enabling/disabling features in my experience. ZCML as it stands is very much tied to application design, and a sysadmin can very easily break something fundamental by messing with it (imagine changing the name of a view, for instance). In contract, of course a sysadmin can break the Apache configuration too, but generally no specific detail of an application is broken in that case. *all* URLs to an application may change, but typically not a single one. So, I consider ZCML to be about application configuration, and Apache configuration to be about general server configuration. There are overlaps and grey areas, but the domains are quite distinct. More importantly to me (being one who is pushing Zope 3 in the Enterprise and recently supplying a summary of the online ZCML data to my fellow developers), what is the 'official' position if the Zope3 book on zope.org is wrong or who says it's wrong and why the change in positions? This occurred to me when Stephan recently said something similar, but I'd forgotten where I had read otherwise. I can't give you an official position. Instead, I'll go into some vague thoughts from me about ZCML: After working extensively with ZCML in large applications, and seeing ZCML as a special kind of declarative programming logic, I have started to wonder about the reusability of ZCML. Zope 3 is good at the reuse of smaller grained components than Zope 2, but I noticed that when I *want* a larger component (including UI and the rest), a whole lot of ZCML will need to come along and quite possibly be adjusted for particular applications. Perhaps snippets of ZCML can be made to be more reusable somehow... It *may* be that this eventually leads to a world where it becomes easier to turn off specific features of an application through ZCML. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 configuration issue. There was always a Zope developer in charge to deal with configuration issues. Those of us developers who have been in this case might not like that to always be the case. :) I'd like to live in a perfect World also. Depends on the ratio developers : sysadmins. If it is 50:50 them the separation is ok. IMO it is 80:20 :-) But that's only my personal estimate. -aj For us working in large organisations (and here I am bluntly assuming that using Zope in large organisations is OK, if you guys don't mind) then this kind of statment makes no sense. Sure, perhaps you guys never have experienced a situation where there are 2-4 developers and 10-12 sysadmins, however that does not mean that your own (in this sense "limited") personal experience constitutes some kind of universal truth. In large organisations where deployment is actually a big deal, then the developers are far fewer than the sysadmins, and there are logistical and resource problems atteched to forcing the developers become an essential part of the on-going sysadmining tasks. Developers are a scarse resource and need to be foucused oin developing things. Sysadmins need to allowed to have a low entry barrier to Zope system administration. My humble 0.02 € /dario -- -- --- Dario Lopez-Kästen, IT Systems & Services Chalmers University of Tech. Lyrics applied to programming & application design: "emancipate yourself from mental slavery" - redemption song, b. marley ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 administrator had to care about Zope configuration issue. There was always a Zope developer in charge to deal with configuration issues. I second that. -- hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark http://www.mxm.dk/ IT's Mad Science ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
--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 was always a Zope developer in charge to deal with configuration issues. Those of us developers who have been in this case might not like that to always be the case. :) I'd like to live in a perfect World also. Depends on the ratio developers : sysadmins. If it is 50:50 them the separation is ok. IMO it is 80:20 :-) But that's only my personal estimate. -aj pgpzixyUmWtwg.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 of us developers who have been in this case might not like that to always be the case. :) I'd like to live in a perfect World also. Andrew > > -aj > ___ Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/andrew%40sawdog.com ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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. > > > > > > Indeed, Apache configuration files were a major influence, and the > > intended audience is substantially the same. > > 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 the ZCML audience. See specifically http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ComponentArchitecture/Zope3Book/zcml.html which says: 1. While the developer is certainly the one that writes the initial cut of the configuration, this user is not the real target audience. Once the product is written, you would expect a system administrator to interact much more frequently with the configuration, adding and removing functionality or adjust the configuration of the server setup. System administrators are often not developers, so that it would be unfortunate to write the configuration in the programming language, here Python. But an administrator is familiar with configuration scripts, shell code and XML to some extend. Therefore an easy to read syntax that is similar to other configuration files is of advantage. 2. 3. I would argue that the apache config is comparable to Zope 3's ZCML - in that, if I wanted to enable/disable some feature typically included with Apache, say CGI support - this is done in Apache's config files. Granted I understand there are some differences, but it is worthy to note that there is some cross-over between Apache's configuration file audiences and Zope 3's ZCML files and ZConfig (zope.conf). More importantly to me (being one who is pushing Zope 3 in the Enterprise and recently supplying a summary of the online ZCML data to my fellow developers), what is the 'official' position if the Zope3 book on zope.org is wrong or who says it's wrong and why the change in positions? This occurred to me when Stephan recently said something similar, but I'd forgotten where I had read otherwise. Thanks, Andrew Sawyers > Regards, > > Martijn > > ___ > Zope3-dev mailing list > Zope3-dev@zope.org > Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/andrew%40sawdog.com > ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
--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 simplify ZCML wherever possible and to make it less verbose. -aj pgpMqxRvCzLMN.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 real >>> focus of the proposal. Converting XML files to ZConfig format >>> doesn't seem like an interesting change. >> >> >> >> If you don't convert your ZCML files to ZConfig format, you'll have to >> support the ZCML reader as well, so I think it'd lead to more code >> unless such a thing were done. > > > Huh? Geez, my proposal must have been really unclear. Very much so. Sentences like "As a format, ZConfig has been very popular. It is less intimidating that ZCML" and "Some people feel that using XML for configuration is too cumbersome" got people (including me) thinking that you were talking about alternate syntaxes for configuring components. Perhaps you could clarify the proposal. > I'm proposing leveraging the ZCML > engine and especially the system for extensibility for handling ZConfig > files. That sounds very reasonable. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 administrator had to care about Zope configuration issue. There was always a Zope developer in charge to deal with configuration issues. 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. While many developers may be familiar with Apache config syntax, not all are, and a random developer is more likely to be familiar with XML anyway. 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. :) Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 experimenting, however, we should be clear of the current deficiencies, though. Just stating that "some people feel that using XML for configuration is too cumbersome" doesn't do it for me and from quickly reading over this thread, I haven't gotten much more than vague statements about the unaesthetics of ZCML. (Of course, to us Pythonistas, aesthetics are somewhat important...) The proposal doesn't go into a lot of detail (it's bit of stirring around) but then again mentions generating SAX events from ZConfig directive. This all sounds very speculative to me. A lot of people have expressed in this thread that using XML has certain advantages. I share everyone of those points (easy parsing and generating in 3rd party tools, validation, etc.). I think we can adress some of the people's concerns first by making ZCML itself less cumbersome. I volunteer helping out here. My blog entry where I propose a lot of changes has been quoted several times already. I want to start there. > * Lesson from Gnome: adding more options doesn't make a user interface > (including our APIs and configuration languages) easier to use; the > reverse happens. It shouldn't be used as a way to avoid debates about > what the right one way should be. Concretely, genericity won't bring us > much: ZConfig might be considered by the community as the 'new way', or > people will stick with ZCML -- people won't generally invent new > syntaxes when they write a new Zope 3 application. I think it is important for any kind of system that deals with humans to provide one obvious way of doing things. Python, believe it or not, is that way. Of course, you can still do things in many different ways, but when I read other people's code, I'm always most comfortable when it's Python because usually I would have written it the same way. I don't want to have to familiarize myself with custom configuration syntaxes that people come up with just because it suits themselves. Zope should be a bit educational in that respect (as it already is with other things, such as ZPT, for example), just as much as Python is educational. > * I don't think the few people that are interested in such syntax > experimentation need implementation support for this in Zope 3, at > present. Writing code that generates ZCML is easy enough -- XML > generation is well-understood. > > I'm not convinced ZCML is intimidating primarily due to its syntax. I > think the XML syntax is only a minimal issue compared to the other > things that make it intimidating, namely that ZCML exposes the component > architecture. > > I think there's lower-hanging fruit to invest energy in simplifying ZCML > *semantically* as it is now first, before we work on alternative > syntaxes or consolidating engines. > > Finally, ZCML works. We've spent energy in educating the Zope community > (3 and 2) in its use. People have learned it. We have working code. Why > throw away that effort and introduce something new? Is ZCML really that > horrible? Do we really think people will come in droves to Zope 3 after > we change it to ZConfig? The *syntax* of ZCML is a very minimal issue > compared to everything else when learning Zope 3. I think we have much > more to gain in improving the semantics of ZCML first, then come back > and reconsider syntax. I *do* think that ZCML is intimidating as it is, especially to Python programmers. I also think that if there's a problem with something in Zope it needs to be fixed, no matter how much working code or docs we have. Perhaps I'm a utopian in that respect, though certainly a bit of a devil's advocate. I think there are ways to make ZCML less of a problem for Zope 3's easy adoption: a) make Zope 3 "scale down" e.g. via bobo, b) reduce ZCML to be more about application policy (on/off switches) and less about definition. Fortunately, people have announced that they'll work on both of these things in the future. We should wait and see what these projects bring. If the improvements they promise will still not be enough, we can re-evaluate. Philipp ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
--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 about Zope configuration issue. There was always a Zope developer in charge to deal with configuration issues. -aj pgpxjpq6I6vAS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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. I also suspect you haven't configured much Apache yourself. Heh, I have always found apache's format quite braindead. I'm not even speaking of the semantics... Why they didn't switch to pure XML with the move to Apache 2.0 still eludes me. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of R&D +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 substantially the same. And the intended audience of ZCML is a very different audience - developers versus sysadmins. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. "There is no wealth but life." --John Ruskin ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 assumptions that need to be discussed. I think Martin was doing that here, so I don't think he was off-topic at all. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 Relax NG schema for ZCML (now out of date). Emacs's 'nxml-mode' could read it, and Emacs would then 'spell-check' my ZCML on the fly. Unfortunately we don't have an automatic generator of such an Relax NG schema yet. Regards, Martijn ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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't configured much Apache yourself. -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems, LLC. http://enfoldsystems.com ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 ZCML? Possibly, but immensly extensible. But xmas hohoho easter bunny Where is the logic in that format? It starts out looking like somethingML, but then isn't. Deprecating ZCML for something better I could live with, but deprecating is for the ZConfig format? Ehm... no thanks. ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 a fancy version of that is made available in apidoc. Also, ZCML does not allow you to specify incorrect attributes or even incorrect combinations. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 some undocumented cornercase somewhere. In a perfect world the configuration system would be self-documenting, so that it only would be possible to select "legal" configuration options/combinations. -- hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark http://www.mxm.dk/ IT's Mad Science ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 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. I'd be in favour of switching zope.conf to an XML-based format as well, personally. > > - building applications or products that need to generate > > configuration files is much easier if the config files are XML-based - > > parsing and generating gets much easier > > Can you give a more specific use case here? I've never had to generate > config files in a way that would have been easier had they been XML-based... 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. Developers familiar with J2EE, .NET etc. are used to XML configuration files, and have editors and tools they are comfortable with. Being able to use those same tools (oh, it's just XML) may ease the learning curve a little. 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. Martin ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 replacing things that currently use ZConfig with ZCML > > and highly -1 on making ZConfig an optional alternative to ZCML at the > > developer's whim. > > I would favour the opposite. > .conf has been around for a lot longer than .zcml... 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. The kind of thing people do with ZCML are an order of magnitude more complex than the things people do in zope.conf. What is true is that there are now two books in print and a growing body of documentation that explains ZCML. If you're suggesting that Zope deprecates ZCML and starts using ZConfig for component wiring, you're going to turn that documentation from useful to confusing, and you're going to alienate a few more developers (and honestly, Zope 3 doesn't yet have that many to alienate). It may be plain and simple to you and everyone else who read these lists daily and know the ins and outs of the Zope.org wikis, but to someone trying to evaluate Zope 3 to find out if they want to bet on it for their next big development project, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it? And for what reason? Because you don't personally like the aesthetics of XML? Martin ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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's code, say :-) that uses ZConfig or whatever else because said person didn't like XML for religious reasons. Yipes, new syntax, more learning curve. And totally unnecessary. 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 replacing things that currently use ZConfig with ZCML and highly -1 on making ZConfig an optional alternative to ZCML at the developer's whim. I would favour the opposite. .conf has been around for a lot longer than .zcml... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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-based configuration files makes it much easier for people of other large systems (ie j2ee) who are starting out with zope feel much more at home and thus lowers the barrier of entry - I say this from personal experience Personally, I think more people have used Apache than J2EE, and Apache uses .conf files for its configuration... - building applications or products that need to generate configuration files is much easier if the config files are XML-based - parsing and generating gets much easier Can you give a more specific use case here? I've never had to generate config files in a way that would have been easier had they been XML-based... cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 implementation with one based on the ZCML engine. This would mean that ZConfig configuration options would be defined using ZCML's meta configuration rather than using ZConfig schemas and components. You do, of course, realize that we already have 2 configuration syntaxes, ZCML and ZConfig. Are you suggesting that we drop one of them? The proposal only proposes consolidating their implementation so that there is only one system for defining configuration directives, Do you mean that you want to replace the way ZConfig schema are defined, or that you want to introduce a second way? If the former, I expect you'll get a backlash from folks that use ZConfig outside of Zope; it is a standalone library now. This should be discussed on the ZConfig list. If the later, we'll need to add API to ZConfig to allow schema to be constructed programmatically. This could be done without impacting existing ZConfig users. No, I want to ditch the ZConfig machinery, keeping the format. I don't want to maintain 2 engines. People who use the existing ZConfig implemenation outside of Zope can continue to do so. The proposal has no impact on the existing ZConfig implementation. Zope (initially Zope 3) would simply cease to use it. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 configuration syntaxes, > ZCML and ZConfig. Are you suggesting that we drop one of them? The proposal > only proposes consolidating their implementation so that there is only one > system for defining configuration directives, Do you mean that you want to replace the way ZConfig schema are defined, or that you want to introduce a second way? If the former, I expect you'll get a backlash from folks that use ZConfig outside of Zope; it is a standalone library now. This should be discussed on the ZConfig list. If the later, we'll need to add API to ZConfig to allow schema to be constructed programmatically. This could be done without impacting existing ZConfig users. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. "There is no wealth but life." --John Ruskin ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 syntax. Having products be simple and consistent is important (and also part of the reason why Plone didn't want to support both DTML and ZPT, FWIW). I don't believe the problem is the XML itself; rather how ZCML tries to do too much, and gets convoluted. I'm a supporter of the approach advocated by Philipp, where cleaning up ZCML somewhat is the way to go. Do you understand that this proposal isn't proposing any new syntaxes? You do, of course, realize that we already have 2 configuration syntaxes, ZCML and ZConfig. Are you suggesting that we drop one of them? The proposal only proposes consolidating their implementation so that there is only one system for defining configuration directives, Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 simple and consistent is important (and also part of the reason why Plone didn't want to support both DTML and ZPT, FWIW). I don't believe the problem is the XML itself; rather how ZCML tries to do too much, and gets convoluted. I'm a supporter of the approach advocated by Philipp, where cleaning up ZCML somewhat is the way to go. -- _ Alexander Limi · Chief Architect · Plone Solutions · Norway Consulting · Training · Development · http://www.plonesolutions.com _ Plone Co-Founder · http://plone.org · Connecting Content Plone Foundation · http://plone.org/foundation · Protecting Plone ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 Y, then he has to learn format X. Of course this issue has been discussed in the context of ZPT versus DTML a long time ago. I was about to make that same point. Having to know how to use two different configuration types makes getting started harder. But, another few points that I'd like are: - using (and only using) XML-based configuration files makes it much easier for people of other large systems (ie j2ee) who are starting out with zope feel much more at home and thus lowers the barrier omaf entry - I say this from personal experience - building applications or products that need to generate configuration files is much easier if the config files are XML-based - parsing and generating gets much easier Those are just two things that came to mind right away. I think Rocky makes an extremely good point. Apart from the rather moot "I don't like the way XML looks" argument, I can't see many arguments in favour of a Zope-specific format that does exactly the same thing as what now every book and article and tutorial covers. The fact that the rest of the world uses XML is also not insignificant. Zope 3 is a fairly hefty paradigm shift for those coming from other backgrounds, and anything to lower the entry barrier must be seen as a positive thing. 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's code, say :-) that uses ZConfig or whatever else because said person didn't like XML for religious reasons. Yipes, new syntax, more learning curve. And totally unnecessary. I'm highly +1 for replacing things that currently use ZConfig with ZCML and highly -1 on making ZConfig an optional alternative to ZCML at the developer's whim. Focus on good, well-defined solutions, not multiple choices that only bring confusion, and keep big guns pointed away from feet. Martin, still trying to learn Zope 3 :) -- (muted) ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
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 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 Y, then he > has to learn format X. Of course this issue has been discussed in the context > of ZPT versus DTML a long time ago. I was about to make that same point. Having to know how to use two different configuration types makes getting started harder. But, another few points that I'd like are: - using (and only using) XML-based configuration files makes it much easier for people of other large systems (ie j2ee) who are starting out with zope feel much more at home and thus lowers the barrier of entry - I say this from personal experience - building applications or products that need to generate configuration files is much easier if the config files are XML-based - parsing and generating gets much easier Those are just two things that came to mind right away. - Rocky -- Rocky Burt ServerZen Software -- http://www.serverzen.com ServerZen Hosting -- http://www.serverzenhosting.net News About The Server -- http://www.serverzen.net ___ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
