Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]


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

Yeah, I read some of the thread, which seemed to discuss a similar misrepresentation. As a result I completely misinterpreted the original proposal. It's indeed somewhat unclear, I'm afraid. Rereading it I think I understand better. Ignore my later mails, sorry. It's a good argument for sticking with ZCML for now, but it's not needed. :)

So, you're not proposing reformulating ZCML as ZConfig, but you're proposing:

* implementing ZConfig on top of the ZCML engine

* thus gaining ZCML's extensibility mechanism in ZConfig

* as a potential side effect gain the ability to experiment with ZConfig as an alternative for existing component configuring ZCML.

Is that correct?

I think the misunderstanding is that you use 'ZCML' in your proposal as the engine. When you say 'ZCML', I initially think 'language', not its implementation. ZConfig for ZCML implies to me using ZConfig's syntax instead of ZCML.

Regards,

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

Reply via email to