Tres Seaver wrote: >>>>I really appreciate your effort in all other cases, but in this case I >>>>think its not a simplification. >>> >>> >>>At least in case of class/implements it is. I'm merging two directives, >>>class/implements and five:implements into one. >>> >>>The case of class/factory is arguable, I admit. However, there I'm just >>>following the rule of a) defining things in Python and registering them in >>>ZCML and b) use more basic ZCML directives, less special ones. > > > That "rule" is somewhat debatable (the debate seems ongoing).
Well, it's a rule (my rule :)), the question is whether it's one that we officially want to use ;). Yep, the debate is ongoing. Unfortunately, I don't have time for the debate. I need to solve problems. Like, for example, explaining someone in a book that <utility /> registers a utility, except when you're doing factories, DAV interfaces, vocabularies, etc. etc. Of course, they're all looked up the same way, namely with getUtility. Well, that's just great. > I think we could argue the following equally well: if you find a > directive unuseful, *just don't use it*. Register *new* directives > (perhaps in a new namespace, if you want to reuse the names) which do > your "simpler / cleaner" thing. Ok. Let's call that the Tres rule :). I'd just say: Use Python constructs until your unuseful directives become useful again. I find <utility /> extremely useful. > Deprecation is not always a reasonable model, given disagreement about > the value of the simplification. Deprecation wasn't objected for the other directives (the top-level ones), so at least for the majority of the directives in question, deprecation and eventual removal does seem to be a reasonable model. Philipp _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list [email protected] Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
