[Zope3-dev] One namespace for ZCML
faassen at infrae.com
Mon Feb 13 12:37:01 EST 2006
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Stephan Richter wrote:
>>>As we have learned that we can reduce nearly all component tasks to
>>>adapters and utilities, many tasks revolving around registration and
>>>configuration of policy also only involve adapters and utilities. By using
>>>those "elementary" directives we can stimulate the learning process for
>>>developers ("there should only be one way of doing things"). Yes, you might
>>>have to use two or three directives instead of just one new one, but you'll
>>>know what you're doing... And you'll remember it in 2 months. I think
>>>that's more valuable than saving a couple of lines today.
>>I think this is the wrong thread. :-) We are discussing the one namespace
>>here. If I would be against replacing one special directive with a couple
>>fundamental directives, I would have voted -1 on the other proposal, which I
> So, you agree that the number of ZCML directives should not grow too
> much, yet you say that you want to keep people adding new directives.
> That doesn't add up for me.
I agree with Stephan, so I'll point out why I don't think I'm inconsistent:
I want to evolve ZCML as it is right now, this might mean removing
directives, changing directives, consolidating directives, adding
directives, removing some namespaces, consolidating some namespaces,
even adding some namespaces.
I think we are at a point in evolution where we want to focus on removal
and consolidation. In general, ZCML is ready for a careful rethink. I
agree we should do such a rethink focused on simplification.
That doesn't mean that I think we should remove the ability to add
directives or namespaces; I think that is removal gone too far. I think
there are legitimate use cases for both abilities.
I think that this position is quite consistent. :)
More information about the Zope3-dev