Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:


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?

Have you written a ZConfig schema?  Have you tried to read the
documentation on writing one? Have you writtem an application
that uses ZConfig? If you had, I think you'd know what I was
talking about.

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...

These aren't due to new features added and discarded.  This is
generally due to refinement based on experience.


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 don't know what you are asking, since I said in this thread and in
the proposal that we could support the old format.

I assume this was done because it's too much of a PITA to write ZConfig

I think you assume wrong there...

Oh? What evidence do you have?  Do you think it was done because
meaningless options are considered a good thing?

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?

Why don't you do that.  In fact, why don't you lobby to
have it added to the standard library?


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

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to