Chris McDonough wrote: > I think it would be more approachable (and therefore "better" on some axis) > if > a) ZCML didn't use schemas (declarative is not a win here, as you still need > to > write imperative code in the handler, and if you *did* want declarative > stuff, > just let the handler call it),
That's true. The handler could use a schema for validation if it wants to. > c) handlers actually just *returned* something rather > than being called for their side effects. The thing the handler returns could implement the IConfigurationAction interface described here: http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ReusableActions I'm not sure the "order" attribute is appropriate, but the rest of Christian's proposal seems good. Perhaps the proposal would be better with your suggestion to return the configuration action from the handler, plus one more enhancement: I think the handler should return an iterable of configuration actions, to make it easy to compose handlers. > It's also completely bizarre that a > ZCML handler has no easy access to the registry being populated except via > getSiteManager(). Well, the purpose of a handler is to populate some global registry, not necessarily the component architecture registry, so I can see the reasoning behind that. Shane _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
