Tim Peters wrote:
[Tim Peters]
I think it's worse, but mostly because a key with name "name" is also an option in _related_ sections, but with unrelated meaning. For example, if you had a nested <zeoclient> section there it could also have specified a "name" key, which would have nothing to do with the <zodb> key named "name". Nesting options with the same name gets confusing quickly. OTOH, I would like the explicit key better if it had a different name, say
<zodb> multidb-name main <filestorage> path $DATADIR/Data.fs </filestorage> </zodb> <zodb> multidb-name a <filestorage> path $DATADIR/A.fs </filestorage> </zodb>
[Florent Guillaume]
Yes, please. There is already confusion for cache-size, let's not repeat that with another key. Note that "database-name" is more expressive, I think
Since the name of the corresponding DB argument is "database_name", and all the docs that exist for this call it "database_name" too, that's hard to argue against ;-)
(the "multi" seems like an implementation detail to me).
Not really: a DB's database_name was introduced specifically for the new-in-ZODB-3.5 multidatabase feature, and has no meaning or use apart from its multidatabase role. That's better explained in the ZConfig <description> section for the key than in the name of the key, though.
If Jim doesn't object soon, I'll proceed with adding a database-name key to ZODB's config.
+1 -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org