On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:30:19 -0000, Rocky Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

However, there is another risk. If we support multiple formats then that means that a developer will have to understand all of them, because if he wants to use another package that uses format X but he is used to format Y, then he has to learn format X. Of course this issue has been discussed in the context
of ZPT versus DTML a long time ago.
I was about to make that same point.  Having to know how to use two
different configuration types makes getting started harder.
But, another few points that I'd like are:
  - using (and only using) XML-based configuration files makes it much
easier for people of other large systems (ie j2ee) who are starting out
with zope feel much more at home and thus lowers the barrier omaf entry -
I say this from personal experience
  - building applications or products that need to generate
configuration files is much easier if the config files are XML-based -
parsing and generating gets much easier
Those are just two things that came to mind right away.

I think Rocky makes an extremely good point. Apart from the rather moot "I don't like the way XML looks" argument, I can't see many arguments in favour of a Zope-specific format that does exactly the same thing as what now every book and article and tutorial covers. The fact that the rest of the world uses XML is also not insignificant. Zope 3 is a fairly hefty paradigm shift for those coming from other backgrounds, and anything to lower the entry barrier must be seen as a positive thing.

Not that XML will magically make it easier (thought it may make it more familiar, and potentially be more compatible with existing toolchains), but the big danger is that some day you'll want to look at some tutorial or example or work with someone else's code (Chris W's code, say :-) that uses ZConfig or whatever else because said person didn't like XML for religious reasons. Yipes, new syntax, more learning curve. And totally unnecessary.

I'm highly +1 for replacing things that currently use ZConfig with ZCML and highly -1 on making ZConfig an optional alternative to ZCML at the developer's whim. Focus on good, well-defined solutions, not multiple choices that only bring confusion, and keep big guns pointed away from feet.

Martin, still trying to learn Zope 3 :)

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to