Alexander Limi wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:15:43 -0800, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ZConfigAndOtherFormatsForZCML
-1 from me, I see this as being a way to have another split in how
things are done, and that different products will use different syntax.
Having products be simple and consistent is important (and also part of
the reason why Plone didn't want to support both DTML and ZPT, FWIW).
I don't believe the problem is the XML itself; rather how ZCML tries to
do too much, and gets convoluted. I'm a supporter of the approach
advocated by Philipp, where cleaning up ZCML somewhat is the way to go.
Do you understand that this proposal isn't proposing any new syntaxes?
You do, of course, realize that we already have 2 configuration syntaxes,
ZCML and ZConfig. Are you suggesting that we drop one of them? The proposal
only proposes consolidating their implementation so that there is only one
system for defining configuration directives,
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
