Lennart Regebro wrote:
On 2/13/06, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
looking for your comments at
This is a "formal" follow-up on my blog post on ZCML a while back
I expect there will be more proposals in this direction, this is just the
beginning. It is also the easy part.
Uhm. -1, actually. I think getting things out of ZCML is a good idea,
but I think this shoots slightly beside the goal. This proposal aims
mostly at getting rid of statements that can be done with other
statetements, but using more lines. I think that goal is misguided, as
it would require you to make longet ZCML files with more basic
statements. This in turns means you need to understand more of what
you are actually doing. Remember that many of these statements were
introduced because ZCML was too obscure and you needed to understand a
lot of different interfaces do know between which interfaces to adapt
I would like to highlight Lennart's point. We need to be very careful
here. We would only have an illusion of improvement if we'd end up with
less directives but more long dotted names into Python packages. I'd
argue that this might make ZCML *harder* to understand, not easier.
In fact, I wonder what a ZCML would look like that focused on reducing
the amount of dotted names in use...
Zope3-dev mailing list