Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Stephan Richter 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.

So, you agree that the number of ZCML directives should not grow too
much, yet you say that you want to keep people adding new directives.
That doesn't add up for me.

I agree with Stephan, so I'll point out why I don't think I'm inconsistent:

I want to evolve ZCML as it is right now, this might mean removing directives, changing directives, consolidating directives, adding directives, removing some namespaces, consolidating some namespaces, even adding some namespaces.

I think we are at a point in evolution where we want to focus on removal and consolidation. In general, ZCML is ready for a careful rethink. I agree we should do such a rethink focused on simplification.

That doesn't mean that I think we should remove the ability to add directives or namespaces; I think that is removal gone too far. I think there are legitimate use cases for both abilities.

I think that this position is quite consistent. :)


Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to