That sounds fine to me.  Note that the hysterical raisin for not
componentizing the zope.conf file (by splitting functional parts into
sections) was because the very (wayyyy back) original intent was to make
it look and act a lot like a Squid config file, which does not have
sections.  It makes sense now to take a different approach.

On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 01:44, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> Chris McDonough writes:
>  > In a perfect world, it would be possible to extend or change the main
>  > section of a schema (or any section in a schema) with altnerate keys or
>  > sections, I think.  I have no idea how to do it, though.
> Phillip Eby and I discussed the override issue a bit, and decided that
> it wouldn't be too hard to do, but we had no concrete need.  Adding
> keys and sections is easy with Phillip's <schema extends='...'>
> support.  These ideas all revolve around creating new schemas, though,
> so aren't quite what we've done with Zope itself.
> We can already create new implementations of abstract types and load
> them through %import in specific configurations; this only applies to
> sections, though.
> I suspect the current support is pretty much what we're looking for;
> if we're forced to describe things as components in the configuration,
> we'll be forced to deal with them as components in the implementation.
> I expect this will lead to better understood implementations, as each
> piece is more easily understood in isolation, and more readily
> maintained.
>   -Fred

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to