Fred Drake wrote:
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?

No, I'm proposing replacing the ZConfig implementation with one based on
the ZCML engine. This would mean that ZConfig configuration options
would be defined using ZCML's meta configuration rather than
using ZConfig schemas and components.

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.

No, I want to ditch the ZConfig machinery, keeping the format.
I don't want to maintain 2 engines. People who use the existing ZConfig
implemenation outside of Zope can continue to do so.  The proposal has no
impact on the existing ZConfig implementation.  Zope (initially
Zope 3) would simply cease to use it.


Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714  
Zope Corporation
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to