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
  not definition.

  An example of a non-python definition language is something like
  XMI, which might provide an alternative way to define schema
  via UML.

- 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
discussion further.


Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714  
Zope Corporation
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to