Jeff Shell wrote:
[snip lots of good stuff about configuration in python code and its drawbacks]

But if that were a route one
decided to use, one would have to lay down VERY strict rules.
Otherwise we lose all the benefits of the Component Architecture and
start heading back into a free-for-all mess.

I just wanted to indicate, belatedly as I just found this discussion, my strong agreement. If configuration moves into Python code, it should be under very strict supervision indeed.

[snip lots more good stuff]

. I think that the ZCML "situation" could be
improved with:

* simpler use - let Python code say what it adapts and implements. Let
Python code subclass from BrowserView. Use ZCML to just register and
name the object. Promote this in documentation, advocacy articles, and
so on.

* alternate syntax? Not Python, but maybe something python-"ish" but
geared towards entering the kind of data references that one has to
type a lot in configuration.

* cut down on the magics like dynamic class creation. this was a
frustrating surprise when I first encountered it a couple of months

* for many of the core ZCML configuration directives, explain their
Python alternative. Not to promote its use when writing large systems,
shared toolkits or frameworks, but to show how to test or just to use
adapters and utilities in small applications that don't require the
full Zope toolkit.

And all of these are a good idea for exploration.


Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to