Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Yet again looking for comments, this time at:

Let me add my -1 to this.

I'm all for reducing the number of namespaces in the standard directives, and reducing the number of directives too, but getting rid of namespaces, as others have pointed out, removes clean ways of extending ZCML for third-party frameworks.

For example CPS currently has a cps:upgradeStep directive:

      title="Upgrade catalog from Zope 2.7"

      title="Clean catalog of broken objects"
      source="3.3.4" destination="3.3.5"

Now you could have a "CpsUpgradeStep" directive, but I hope everyone agrees that prefixing names is a poor man's way of doing namespaces.

You could also maybe provide the same info using two or three other standard directives, but that would be very inconvenient.

Maybe a simple zope 3 component doesn't need to provide extensions to ZCML using a namespace, but any *framwework* on top of it will quickly need them.


Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France)   Director of R&D
+33 1 40 33 71 59   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to