Fred Drake wrote:
On 1/23/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I said earlier, I think XML is wrong for configuration for exactly
this kind of reason... element-based is right for this type of config,
it's why Apache uses, it's why Zope 2 uses it, and it's why Zope 3 uses
it for the .conf file...
There are no elements in the ZConfig configuration language.
'elements', a word with too many meanings ;-)
Sections, yes, but as has been noted, those don't trivially map to XML
I haven't seen anything to suggest that...
...some might even say it's bizarre to suddenly switch to a different
language just because you're going off to include another .conf file, as
site.zcml is from zope.conf...
Odd; I've never thought of zope.conf as including site.zcml.
I didn't deliberately, but then I saw the line in zope.conf and it
really reminded by of a ZConfig 'include'...
identifies an application configuration that should be used, but
And what does zope.conf do then? ;-)
I see them both as configuring a zope instance, I don't see the need to
for 2 configuration languages...
The zope.conf file and the ZCML files really do have different
I think that's arguable, but not important. Even if there were two
audiences, why the need for two config languages?
languages be different, but I think it's clearly wrong to hand system
administrators an XML configuration syntax.
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
Zope3-dev mailing list