On Monday 13 February 2006 08:36, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> As we have learned that we can reduce nearly all component tasks to
> adapters and utilities, many tasks revolving around registration and
> configuration of policy also only involve adapters and utilities. By using
> those "elementary" directives we can stimulate the learning process for
> developers ("there should only be one way of doing things"). Yes, you might
> have to use two or three directives instead of just one new one, but you'll
> know what you're doing... And you'll remember it in 2 months. I think
> that's more valuable than saving a couple of lines today.

I think this is the wrong thread. :-) We are discussing the one namespace 
here. If I would be against replacing one special directive with a couple 
fundamental directives, I would have voted -1 on the other proposal, which I 
did not.

> That said, there might still be a small percentage of cases where custom
> directives are a valid tool. I can accept their being on the same namespace
> as others. In fact, I would like it to be that way, reducing the amount of
> dead chickens (namespace declarations).

I do not think namespace declarations are dead chickens. For me declaring a 
namespace in ZCML is the same as importing a package or module in Python. You 
would not want all functions and classes in Python live in one namespace, 
would you?

Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to