On 2/13/06, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 13 February 2006 07:57, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> > Yet again looking for comments, this time at:
> > http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/OneNamespaceForZCML.
> -1
> Here some comments:
> - You do not argue how the decision-making process is "highly inconsistent".
> - I do not understand what's so bad about coming up with your 3rd-party ZCML
> directives. They are extremely easy to write and use. I think that 3rd-party
> ZCML directives are not a bad thing. And yes, I would like to keep those in a
> separate namespace.

I am also -1.

But I take issue with your second statement. ZCML directives are the
hardest and scariest code in Zope 3 to understand. It was easier to
figure out what was going on with multi-adapter lookup than to figure
out how menuItems work! (I lost a day trying to figure out if I could
just put a javascript condition on a  menu item before coming up with
a glorious trick).

I still HATE magical ZCML. But I still think ZCML is a good thing and
should be modularized. Simplified - yes. Modular (namespaces) - yes.
Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to