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.

Very much so. Sentences like "As a format, ZConfig has been very
popular. It is less intimidating that ZCML" and "Some people feel that
using XML for configuration is too cumbersome" got people (including me)
thinking that you were talking about alternate syntaxes for configuring

Perhaps you could clarify the proposal.

> I'm proposing leveraging the ZCML
> engine and especially the system for extensibility for handling ZConfig
> files.

That sounds very reasonable.

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

Reply via email to