Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> [snip]
>>> 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.
> I thought significant process was made on the ability to reuse more 
> handlers now that Zope 2 has got __parent__ support. Not enough?

Some progress has been made. But some of the actions actually do have a
different semantic in Five, like all the resource things. The URL scheme
they produce is different for example. Some others will need to adhere
to different security needs or use different base classes for the
automagically inserted classes. Last time I looked there was no clear
next step that would need to be taken to remove more custom handlers.

>> 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.
> I'd consider it at least a necessary step towards a long term answer, so 
> you should be +1 for step one. :)

I'm +0, since I don't yet know, where the journey will take us and if
this is a step into the right direction. If others drive this forward,
I'm fine with it. I'm just not going to put lots of my time into it just


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

Reply via email to