Chris Withers <chris <at> simplistix.co.uk> writes:
> Okay, just because everyone seems to be ignoring the point, I'll say it
> a third time
> You already have to know both .conf and .zcml to use Zope 3. I'd prefer
> that to only be .conf for exactly the reasons you give above.
> > 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.
> I would favour the opposite.
> .conf has been around for a lot longer than .zcml...
No, I heard you the first time. But whilst zope.conf has been around for ages,
it has not been used for the purpose that ZCML is now used. The kind of thing
people do with ZCML are an order of magnitude more complex than the things
people do in zope.conf.
What is true is that there are now two books in print and a growing body of
documentation that explains ZCML. If you're suggesting that Zope deprecates ZCML
and starts using ZConfig for component wiring, you're going to turn that
documentation from useful to confusing, and you're going to alienate a few more
developers (and honestly, Zope 3 doesn't yet have that many to alienate). It may
be plain and simple to you and everyone else who read these lists daily and know
the ins and outs of the Zope.org wikis, but to someone trying to evaluate Zope 3
to find out if they want to bet on it for their next big development project, it
doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it? And for what reason? Because you
don't personally like the aesthetics of XML?
Zope3-dev mailing list