Tim Peters wrote:
[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

     multidb-name main
       path $DATADIR/Data.fs
     multidb-name a
       path $DATADIR/A.fs

[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.


Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to