On 1/22/06, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you understand that this proposal isn't proposing any new syntaxes?
Do I understand correctly that you're proposing adding a way to spell
ZConfig configuration schema using ZCML?
> You do, of course, realize that we already have 2 configuration syntaxes,
> ZCML and ZConfig. Are you suggesting that we drop one of them? The proposal
> only proposes consolidating their implementation so that there is only one
> system for defining configuration directives,
Do you mean that you want to replace the way ZConfig schema are
defined, or that you want to introduce a second way?
If the former, I expect you'll get a backlash from folks that use
ZConfig outside of Zope; it is a standalone library now. This should
be discussed on the ZConfig list.
If the later, we'll need to add API to ZConfig to allow schema to be
constructed programmatically. This could be done without impacting
existing ZConfig users.
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com>
"There is no wealth but life." --John Ruskin
Zope3-dev mailing list