On 2 December 2010 13:34, Benji York <be...@benjiyork.com> wrote: > I appreciate the flexibility inherent in that approach, but personally, > I'd be frightened of such a system. I sometimes have problems figuring > out which directives are active in the current system, if I had to > reason about dozens of priority levels I think it'd be worse.
I think there would in general be either no priority set or a single, non-trivial priority. It's true that priorities in general open up for some complexity (e.g. ordering ``zope.viewlet`` viewlets), but if used sparingly, I think it's a reasonable approach. > I don't quite follow the "for the rest of us" part. Will you expand on > that? As far as I understand, for a ZCML include override to work properly, you need to carefully make sure that your includes are in the exact right order and on the same level. In a system where two packages are trying to override the same component (should arguably never be the csae, but it is frequently), it can be difficult to get it right. Priorities on the other hand are absolute, globally. It's easy for anyone to see that the highest priority wins, no matter the order of inclusion. \malthe _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )