[Zope-dev] Re: Mountpoints

[Jim Fulton]

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 at zope.com       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org