Martijn Faassen wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
See:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
Comments and volunteers welcome.
I like this proposal. It is likely to reduce the total amount of code.
However, I want to be sure that consolidating engines is the real
focus of the proposal. Converting XML files to ZConfig format doesn't
seem like an interesting change.
If you don't convert your ZCML files to ZConfig format, you'll have to
support the ZCML reader as well, so I think it'd lead to more code
unless such a thing were done.
Huh? Geez, my proposal must have been really unclear. I'm not proposing
replacing ZCML files with ZConfig files. I'm proposing leveraging the ZCML
engine and especially the system for extensibility for handling ZConfig files.
This would require some new code, but would reduce the amount of code
overall. It would also reduce the number of configuration-file extension
mechanisms needed. Finally, it would make it a lot easier to extend ZConfig
file handling.
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
[email protected]
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
