Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Yet again looking for comments, this time at:
I assume that this proposal is dead. I haven't read the whole thead,
but I think that was the gist. I notice that this proposal no longer
is listed on the proposals page. It would be helpful if the proposal
status was also updated.
Some parting shots:
- We should not be trying to reinvent ZCML. It's XML. If you
don't like that, get over it.
- We do need a better high-level configuration system for doing the
sorts of things that we use ZConfig for, and maybe some things we
currently use ZConfig for. But that's a different discussion that
I'll get back to soon.
- We need to find the riht balence between ZCML and Python. There
are many places where we did too much in ZCML. Everybody makes mistakes.
That's how we learn. :)
- As a general rule, things should be defined in Python (or perhaps
other definition languages) and *registered* in ZCML. Certainly,
"core" ZCML directives should be about reigistration/configuration
An example of a non-python definition language is something like
XMI, which might provide an alternative way to define schema
- BTW, I wouldn't object to having one "core" namespace.
- We need to recognize the concerns of different kinds of users.
There will be users for which high-level directives will be beneficial,
even when these high-level directives define as well as configure.
I think these high-level directives will often be project specific.
Then again, a better alternative might be to use high-level definition
language like XMI.
I really think the ArchGenX project has a lot to offer here. Does
anyone know if it is still alive?
Please resist the temptation to respond to this post and drag out this
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
Zope3-dev mailing list