-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > Martijn Faassen wrote:
<snip> >> I suspect quite >> a few of the directives that can go away are in the 'small' namespaces, >> such as mail. We may also want to move some directives to other >> namespaces. If all directives disappear from a namespace, so can the >> namespace. The potential for win can be much larger while the potential >> for breakage is much smaller, as we can do this step by step. > > I agree. As we do that, we should also try to figure out when and how we > decide > what goes into its own namespace and what doesn't. Currently ZCML namespaces > are used to: > > * Differentiate between different view types (generic vs. browser vs. xmlrpc) > > * Mark the domain of a certain registration (i18n, mail, rdb, help) > > * Associate directives with a certain, perhaps optional package (apidoc, other > 3rd party packages) > > Why does apidoc have its own namespace and, say, zope.app.securitypolicy > doesn't? Or why did zope.viewlet not put its directives into the 'viewlet' > namespace but into the 'browser' namespace? All that seems arbitrary to me. > Just as the fact that I'm "supposed" to put my frobnatz directive into the > plone namespace even if a frobnatz is actually a browser thing. I think the clue here is to put your directives into a namespace whose UIR you "control": in the case of 3rd-party packages managed outside of the 'zope' package, I think that this means somewhere other thatn 'namespaces.zope.org' (the prefix, of course, is rebindable on a per file basis). I think 'zc.resourcelibrary' does this wrong, injecting its 'resourceLibrary' directive into the main 'zope' namespace; perhaps 'http://namespaces.zope.org/zc' would be better. >> I really think that the discussion on namespaces is so common not >> because it's so important, but because it's an easy thing to comment on >> and talk about. People are less likely to have huge discussions about >> larger but harder to understand issues. > > Perhaps. But it also seems like they're talking about it because it bugs them > a > lot. Tres seems to think that we shouldn't worry about those "trolls". I'm > inclined to think that if people have issues with ZCML and welcome > simplifications, we should consider coming up with some. So far I'm the only > one who has made constructive suggestions for doing so beyond Jim's adapts() > hook (I won't count suggestions that seek to replace ZCML with ZConfig, YAML, > etc.). I don't think objecttions based on "why do I have to type the namespace declrartion?" are valid: they get trumped by "explicit is better than implicit," if nothing else. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD8cgC+gerLs4ltQ4RAp3aAJ9BM3CDM5pNuJtEUu09MEYaRSTwLgCgseOh EnR5MUdGdPdqGwMSXO1PqVs= =Ui3c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com