Stuart Bishop wrote:
the Z3 configuration. This was with Zope 3.0 and integrating our config with
the Z3 config was quite problematic.

What were the problematic bits?

We lost a fair bit of flexibility doing it this way. Field validation needs
to be done the ZConfig way.

How would you prefer to do it?

There are issues with non-required fields in
non-required sections giving us grief.

Can you describe these a little?

There seem to be namespace issues,
despite being hierarchical (eg. we have <librarian><librarian_server>
instead of just <librarian><server>, it seems because <server> is already
used by Z3 so we can't call our section that).

Hmm, that's odd :-S

having are our fault, I would also call that a problem with ZConfig as the
documentation is not detailed enough to match ZConfigs complexity.

Yep, I'd agree with that. ZConfig is a tool that's very easy to misuse :-/

So +1 I guess. Although I personally would prefer using XML, as I think it
will be more readable for complex configurations as it is better able to
represent heirarchies and provide more flexibility to developers.

My main gripe with the .ini format is the lack of hierarchy, but then I worry that with XML we'll suffer from an overly complex schema...

config sucks, we should all just go to the pub...


Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to