I really appreciate your effort in all other cases, but in this case I think its not a simplification.
The today's arrangement of class subdirectives is not an evil at all.
We use all offered subdirectives (including implements and factory) heavily in our use cases.

IMO It's important that nested directives embrace things belonging together. This enhances readability of the grouping and reduces redundant reference-informations. That's also a
very important aspect of usability.

I would be annoyed about the proposed changes.


Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Dominik Huber wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
* class/implements and class/factory weren't removed -- yet. I guess
removing these might be a bit controversial. I'd therefore like to take
this opportunity to bring this topic up again and to give everyone a
chance to look at the proposal once again, before I start spending lots
of time on the implementation.
I'm -1 on moving <implements> out of the class directive

Why? With a top-level <implements> directive, we get to deal with more
general cases (not only classes can implement interfaces, functions can
too). It will also let us get rid of the Five-specific five:implements
directive for which there seems to be no good reason to be in the five

With "Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives" I'm looking mostly at
consolidation of the existing stuff.
It's ok to *introduce* a top-level <implements>, but not to *move*.
and I'm still -1 on removing the factory subdirective.

Would you care to explain why? I couldn't find a previous comment from
you on that.
[Zope3-dev] Simplify Skinning ready for review / work on Reducing the Amount of ZCML Directives Dominik Huber Dominik Huber

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to