Philipp von Weitershausen schrieb:
The big problem we have is, we have a different meaning what ZCML
It seems so.
I think ZCML supports registration and python supports
everything except configuration.
I very much agree.
No, you don't!
For my point of view.
You implemented a concept which requires to write additional
python code for registration!
Perhaps we have to define "supports" here. Right now ZCML can't
support the task "configuration" without use the python layer.
I like a strict separation if possible.
Now you are going in a direction where we mix both concept with each
On the contrary! Directives like <vocabulary /> mix implementation and
configuration because they both create and register. <utility />,
<adapter />, etc. just register. That's ZCML's primary job and my goal
is to reduce its functionality so that ZCML is more about registration,
not so much about creation.
Before the proposal, ZCML was able configure existing python component.
After the proposal, We have to write python based configuration
component for each configuration. Where are inexistent before. And I
only think this is not easier then before.
Both concept need a understanding of the undelayoing concept.
You suggest that your "python" concept is implicit understandable
and the ZCML before was not. I say both concept are not understandable
So far in this response I've only reiterated points of my proposal,
especially the 3 points in the *Problems* section. I will also note that
Jim has made some pretty clear points about this discussion
two of which I quote here:
- We need to find the riht balence between ZCML and Python. There
are many places where we did too much in ZCML. Everybody makes
mistakes. That's how we learn. :)
I didn't agree with that.
We get this mess only because of splitting the configuration declaration
in two different implementation layers. (python and ZCML)
I'm not surprised that Jim means that's a problem and we have to find
a balance. This "find balance problem" is only a result of using two
totaly different "logicialy layers" for configuration. We never will get
a understandable concept if we mix them.
If I speak about mix them I mean it should be possible to
register python/zope3 components without to write python code.
- As a general rule, things should be defined in Python (or perhaps
other definition languages) and *registered* in ZCML. Certainly,
"core" ZCML directives should be about reigistration/configuration
That's excactly the problem. Jim says "things" without to define it!
What is "things"?
Minimal needed python application code which makes it possible to run
and test a application?
also additional python configuration code.
And please tell me where was the definition in the vocabulary directive?
The vocabulary added the option to register the arbitary attribute
well defined in the vocabulary utility class!
If you think not and will be consistent, you have to change the
browser:page or browser:view directive and move the name
attribute to a pyhton factory as well.
I'll also state again that having this discussion now is extremely
frustrating as the proposal had been up for discussion for over a month
(five weeks, to be exact). Given that the feature freeze was approaching
and I yet have other things on my list for Zope 3.3, I needed to make
the change at some point. I even gave a heads-up before the merge so
that people could review the branch.
Sorry you didn't understand me correct. I think your proposal is good.
I only will do it in "additional" another way (like before) because I
don't like to write additional python configuration components.
Your "option" to do it in a "simpler" way is just subjectiv and for
me not true.
I only like to have the old way back for "my simpler" way of doing.
I guess Tres was also pointing in this direction.
I don't know what other things to do in the future. I thought this was
the process (write a proposal, gather comments, make everyone happy and
do the change eventually). I have other things in the line, if this
process proves to be a problem, I'm pretty sure I won't have the energy
to have more discussions of this kind (the ones that come *after* I made
Did somebody agree with our proposal *before* you made the changes?
I remember only that Stephan Richter, Dominik Huber and me not agree
at all and more then once. Perhaps that's bad that we didn't post the
comment to the wiki proposal page.
I'm sure we will have to start this discussion again if we publish the
next release and other have to migrate their application.
Mit freundlichem Gruss
phone +41 (0)41 781 01 78
mobile +41 (0)79 340 52 32
fax +41 (0)41 781 00 78
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
END OF MESSAGE
Zope3-dev mailing list