> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philipp von Weitershausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: The browser:page compromise
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> That confuses me even more. I *am* proposing changes to the
> >>> browser:page directive...
> >> Hmm, never mind. I think I understand what you mean. You'd like to
> >> see new directives, instead of changing the old ones. Right?
> > Yes, I think it's very important to bring a little stability to the
> > Zope3 framework rather then change every release such fundamental
> > parts like directives.
> I will accept this criticism when you tell Jim that his work
> on jim-adapter branch was wrong for that same reason and when
> you tell me (which you haven't) that my work on
> MakeZopeAppSmaller is also wrong for that reason.
That's a difference. Jim's *adapter* refactoring will bring us
a speed up and solves some problems in the adapter registry
implementation. (lookup multiadapter by it's registration tuple).
Your proposal is just a *cosmetic* change which forces us to
change existing projects and like Florent says: We have to
write additional python classes for just that. I don't buy this
as really usefull.
> Sorry, I just don't buy it. We're still refactoring some key
> packages like zope.component and you're trying to shoot down
> a refactoring of 3 ZCML directives?
Why the hell do I have to write additional python classes for
each page registration after your refactoring?
I don't by this as a improvment.
If we do this, I can add the browser:page directive back as
a high level directive and then the need for write additional
python classes is just a YAGNY like before. Is this really a
Another problem is, that we have mor then 6 projects build
with zope3 up and running. Such a improvment is not nice
and will force us to change more then ~300 existing page
It's a horror to think about how many python class we have
to write if we do this simplification!!!
You totaly ignore that Zope3 is not a experimental framework
now and stability is also a criteria which should recognized.
Please recognize that some people have built applications
with zope3 since more then 2 years now. And respect that
they are not willing to just change everything wich forces
them to go other ways then before without a real *improvment*.
btw, I don't dislike the refactoring at all, but I just dislike
that we have to update our projects for *this* simplification.
We have at least to provide both way of registration.
Perhaps it's really time to add a higher level directive pool
for such refactorings. Is this a option for you?
Zope3-dev mailing list