Jim Fulton wrote:
I don't want to try to make paste deploy or setuptools,
use ZConfig. There are other tools out there that use
Yay! Lowest common denominator programming :-(
I'd like to be able to use configuration files for the
test runner, but I really don't want ZConfig to be a
dependency of the test runner. I also don't want to
go through all of the gymnasics required to develop a ZConfig
schema just for the test runner.
What are these gymnastics you speak of?
This isn't all that common.
Hmmm, the number of DeprecationWarnings I seem to see with Zope
3-related stuff would appear to disagree with that...
...but maybe that's another thread.
Note that in my proposal, I proposed supporting the ZConfig
format, at least for a while.
Isn't there some way we could make this switchable so we don't have to
make either/or choices?
(I'd still be verymuch in favour of seeing ZConfig as the default.)
I assume this was done because it's too much of a PITA to write ZConfig
I think you assume wrong there...
Paste Deploy provides a framework for doing
this. I'd rather colaborate on something that exists that
have to reinvent it just to keep using ZConfig.
Well, maybe they could use ZConfig? Has anyone asked them?
Either that or make the config switchable for the edge case where you
want to use paste deploy. But please, don't force a change like this
through for one particular piece of interoperability that not many of us
seem to feel as passionately about as you :-S
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
Zope3-dev mailing list