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 

Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to