Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> > Lennart Regebro wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >
> > Sometimes not only using more lines, sometimes only using 2 or 3 more
> > lines.
> > I'd say whoever wants to save 2 or 3 lines at the expense of indirection
> > is misguided.
> I'm not sure what you mean with "at the expense of indirection", but I
> think I'm misguided. :) I like abstractions and being able to name things.

So do I. And I like consistency. I think that our current approach of having
individual ZCML directives is neither abstract nor consistent, though. The
concept of a utility is an abstraction. Using a single process to register
them and look them up is also a good abstraction and provides consistency.

Note that all of this won't keep you from putting a name on things. But does
the name have to necessarily be reflected by ZCML? Won't the name of the
component be enough? Looking at this snippet::


The naming of the component already gives it away as a factory. To me that's
enough naming.


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to