Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote at 2003-12-30 15:08 -0500:
>Dieter Maurer writes:
> > ...
> > I feel the configuration process is not yet as modular
> > as it should be?
>There's certainly room for improvement.
> > Let's explain what extensions I have:
> > 1. an alternate "Transience" implementation for Zope sessions
>I don't know how the session machinery works in Zope; if there's a
>section to configure that at all, it should at least be easy to make
>it possible to provide an alternate section type that can be used.
It uses top level keys for configuration.
But anyway (even if session configuration were
encapsulated in its own section),
I would need to change the Zope schema (if I understand
"ZConfig" correctly, which is not yet sure).
Ideally, I would like to be able to combine schemas from schema
components -- say: "use the standard Zope schema and apply the
>What changes did you need to make to Zope to make this configurable?
I added a "session_module" key to "zopeschema.xml".
> > 2. a new log handler "rotated_logfile" (which performs automatic
> > daily rotation with log files named "prefix.date")
>This doesn't need any changes in zLOG; you should be able to provide a
>new component and use %import to load it in the configuration.
Thank you for confirmation. I expected this to be so.
> > 3. a common piece of configuration used for communication
> > between Zope and a "checkZope" process (which supervises
> > that Zope responds sufficiently fast)
> > I solved 1 and 2 by rudely modifying Zope sources ("zLOG/component.xml"
> > and associated "handlers", "Zope/Startup/zopeschema.xml" and associated
> > "handlers"). I do not yet have a solution for 3 but I probably will
> > give the "checkZope" process the complete Zope schema and configuration
> > file.
>I'm not sure why you want the checkZope process to load Zope's
>configuration at all. Can't you just use a separate configuration
> If there are portions that need to be shared, you can place
>those in a separate file and %include that into the Zope and checkZope
Thank you: I overlooked the "%include" for configuration files.
It satisfies my use case with respect to the actual configuration.
I must still think about it on the schema level (but that is not
pressing as the affected schema part is trivial).
> > I think, a general "include" function for schemas (including not
> > only types but complete schemas) and configuration files
> > could provide this kind of modularity.
>Have you looked at the <schema extends="..."> support Phillip Eby
I read about it but did not recognized its potential to solve
my modularity requirements.
I do now! Thank you!
Thus, all my wishes are already addressed by the current
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -