Benji York wrote: > >> One downside to the expanded interface directive is that it hides the > >> fact that a utility is also being created. I actually prefer the > >> browser:skin version because it totally hides the underlying "atomic" > >> operations, but the <interface>-also-registers-a-utility version > >> conflates two atomic operations. > > > > > > That's what it does now. All Philipp's revised proposal does is have > > zcml expose the 'id' attribute in > > zope.app.component.interface.provideInterface. AFAICT there are no > > other necessary changes to do what he suggested (for this part of the > > story). > > In that case a +0 from me. I still have some (possibly purely > aesthetic) desire to define a small set of basic building blocks and > define (mostly) everything else with them.
I'm the same way. My suggestion was merely a compromise to make the necessary ZCML not double or triple in length after in this proposal. The good news is that the 'complicated' way of first making the interface a skin and then registering it under the skin name will still work. It's just longer (and, as a side effect, registers the interface twice, once under its dotted name and once under its skin name). I updated the proposal (http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/SimplifySkinning) to mention the shortcut. Given that there don't seem to be other objections, I will start implementing the proposal this weekend. Thanks for all your input! Philipp ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com