On Friday 17 March 2006 10:46, Jim Fulton wrote: > I'll note, however, that I think there will be lots of interesting > small Python applications that don't use zope.configuration. > zope.configuration is helpful for providing flexible configuration > of an application server. I think and hope that there will be lots > of interesting applications that don't use an application server > and that do use Zope components. These components should not depend > on zope.configuration and their unit tests should not introduce such > a dependency or be made more complex just to provide some sort of > consistency.
I think this is a really good point that we should keep in mind. I, personally, love the new zope.component registration functions. OT: I also used ``zope.interface.implementer`` and ``zope.component.adapter`` as decorators for the first time yesterday and I absolutely love them! I am intrigued to write a ``zope.app.apidoc.factory`` decorator now that does the apidoc helper dance now. For all that are wondering what this is about: If the adapter is a function (for example), apidoc has no way of telling what type of object is being returned and thus the documentation is much less useful. By setting the ``factory`` attribute to the object factory on the function, apidoc will have the data it needs. This even works for nested functions. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com