On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 00:12, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:

> I'm going to describe each issue in a separate email, including why
> I've changed my mind about them and what the consequences are for
> ZConfig users.  Please respond to these messages if you think the
> proposed changes will have a negative impact on working code.

Cool.  I'll comment, and then post a separate message about some things
I'd like to see in ZConfig.  (Fred created a wiki on zope.org but wikis
were broken there and I don't know if they've been fixed.)

FTR, of course I'm using ZConfig in various Zope projects that I work
on, but I'm also going to be using ZConfig in Mailman 3.

> I thought it better to explicity request the same datatype was a
> better approach because of way we've been using ZConfig in some of the
> core packages.  Each concrete section type really uses a different
> datatype; sharing configuration handling is accomplished only within
> Python.

This is how I'm using extended section types in my code currently.  The
proposed change won't affect me because I explicitly specify the data
types in derived section types.  It seems to me unlikely that you'd have
a base section type with a non-default data type, with derived section
types that rely on the default data type.  



Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to