Chris Withers wrote at 2009-2-6 12:31 +0000:
> ...
>>   I would find is very unintuitive when configuration were centralized
>>   (in subpackages of "zope.configuration") rather than modular.
>>   Configuration belongs to the application or framework component
>>   that depends on this configuration not to any central component.
>I would normally agree, but this isn't quite as simple as that.
>ZCML cuts across packages in that, if you use ZCML, you want the 
>directives for all the packages you have installed.

At least, I want only the directives for the packages I have
*really* installed. Think of the dependancy monster a common
configuration package would be.

And even when I have a package installed, I may not want its registrations
(because they are inadequate for me and I want to provide my own).

>If you don't use ZCML, you don't want any of the directives.
>using --> to mean depends on, what we want is:
>        ^
>        |
>zcmlforpackagez --> packagex
>...which frees up packagex to be used without any ZCML

Apparently, you treat "zope.configuration" as a namespace package
and you will never install "zope.configuration" as a whole but
only the lower packages -- that might work.

Nevertheless, I find it highly unintuitive to rip of the configuration
and put it at a completely different place.
Package names of the form "packagex" and "packagex_zcml" seem far
more intuitive for me.

Note that below "zope.configuration" you have to retain the namepaces
of your packages to avoid name conflicts and provide a homogenous
map between package and its configuration package.
You would get subpackages "zope.configuration.zope.proxy",

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

Reply via email to