Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
> [snip]
>>> a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in 
>>> zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to 
>>> declare ZCML extra dependencies.
>> -1 from me. 
> [snip motivation I agree with]
> options b and c:
>> +0 Seems reasonable to me.
> Anything you'd actually be +1 on? :)

I haven't figured out yet, what I'd like to do with ZCML and
zope.configuration in general. It seems to me that ZCML is right now too
tightly bound to application configuration. Zope2 and Five need
different action handlers and this will continue to be the case for the
next years and possibly forever. Grok has different needs for the
configuration part of your application. repoze.bfg takes yet another
approach. Once we define a Grok-like API for Plone we will probably end
up with yet some other kind of different semantics.

My gut feeling is that the best long term answer would be to figure out
how to split zope.configuration and ZCML kind of in the middle. What
parts of application configuration are actually reusable and which are
not. How does application configuration and system configuration like
paste.ini and zope.conf fir together?

Just trying to push out ZCML in itself seems better than having it stay
in, but not what I'd consider to be a good long term answer.


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

Reply via email to