Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:

One issue though is that I want to replace ZConfig with a ZConfig
format for zcml. (This would include making ZCML extensible to accept
any other format.) The user experience would be the same, but
extending it would be a lot easier than extensing ZConfig.  I plan to
make a proposal for this in the next few days.

Running ahead of your proposal, I wonder whether you mean using ZConfig's syntax to replace ZCML's syntax, or replace ZConfig's syntax with ZCML syntax. Both are fundamentally different approaches, but I can read either in what you say here. :)

FWIW, I still hate ZCML for the following reasons:

- the tags never have any content, that's a sign xml is the wrong solution

- if anyone has or does rebind xml namespaces, it causes confusion. having to include the namespace definitions at the top of each file is dead chicken most of the time.

- personally, I just find it hard to read..

I'd really like to see everything done in zope.conf-style format, I think this would work for all ZCML's use cases, we could even extend ZConfig to support "namespaces", what do people think?



Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to