[Tim Peters] >> I think it's worse, but mostly because a key with name "name" is also >> an option in _related_ sections, but with unrelated meaning. For >> example, if you had a nested <zeoclient> section there it could also >> have specified a "name" key, which would have nothing to do with the >> <zodb> key named "name". Nesting options with the same name gets >> confusing quickly. OTOH, I would like the explicit key better if it >> had a different name, say >> >> <zodb> >> multidb-name main >> <filestorage> >> path $DATADIR/Data.fs >> </filestorage> >> </zodb> >> <zodb> >> multidb-name a >> <filestorage> >> path $DATADIR/A.fs >> </filestorage> >> </zodb>
[Florent Guillaume] > Yes, please. There is already confusion for cache-size, let's not repeat > that with another key. Note that "database-name" is more expressive, > I think Since the name of the corresponding DB argument is "database_name", and all the docs that exist for this call it "database_name" too, that's hard to argue against ;-) > (the "multi" seems like an implementation detail to me). Not really: a DB's database_name was introduced specifically for the new-in-ZODB-3.5 multidatabase feature, and has no meaning or use apart from its multidatabase role. That's better explained in the ZConfig <description> section for the key than in the name of the key, though. If Jim doesn't object soon, I'll proceed with adding a database-name key to ZODB's config. _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )