Fred Drake wrote:
>>I would prefer not. We've used resourceDirectory to support things
>>like webcams. The image(s) uploaded by the cams might not always be
>>there, but the containing path is. It's nice not having Zope start
> Good point.
>>If it was sugar for a set of resource directives, this could easily
>>fail out on us, unless it was making 'resource' items all the time
>>whenever the directory's contents changed.
> Right. In which case, another possibility would be to have a new
> directive that really is just sugar as I described. That would avoid
> backward compatibility problems and make the intention clear.
I was about to suggest the same but hadn't caught up with the thread.
Either way, resource definitions are not quite the goal of my proposal
so I'll leave it out of there. Perhaps Paul or whoever has the need for
it would like to implement a "resourcesFromDirectory" directive...
Zope3-dev mailing list