[Zope3-dev] Re: RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML

[Martin Aspeli]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:30:19 -0000, Rocky Burt <rocky at serverzen.com> wrote:

>> However, there is another risk. If we support multiple formats then  
>> that means
>> that a developer will have to understand all of them, because if he  
>> wants to
>> use another package that uses format X but he is used to format Y, then  
>> he
>> has to learn format X. Of course this issue has been discussed in the  
>> context
>> of ZPT versus DTML a long time ago.
> I was about to make that same point.  Having to know how to use two
> different configuration types makes getting started harder.
> But, another few points that I'd like are:
>   - using (and only using) XML-based configuration files makes it much
> easier for people of other large systems (ie j2ee) who are starting out
> with zope feel much more at home and thus lowers the barrier omaf entry -
> I say this from personal experience
>   - building applications or products that need to generate
> configuration files is much easier if the config files are XML-based -
> parsing and generating gets much easier
> Those are just two things that came to mind right away.

I think Rocky makes an extremely good point. Apart from the rather moot "I  
don't like the way XML looks" argument, I can't see many arguments in  
favour of a Zope-specific format that does exactly the same thing as what  
now every book and article and tutorial covers. The fact that the rest of  
the world uses XML is also not insignificant. Zope 3 is a fairly hefty  
paradigm shift for those coming from other backgrounds, and anything to  
lower the entry barrier must be seen as a positive thing.

Not that XML will magically make it easier (thought it may make it more  
familiar, and potentially be more compatible with existing toolchains),  
but the big danger is that some day you'll want to look at some tutorial  
or example or work with someone else's code (Chris W's code, say :-) that  
uses ZConfig or whatever else because said person didn't like XML for  
religious reasons. Yipes, new syntax, more learning curve. And totally  
unnecessary.

I'm highly +1 for replacing things that currently use ZConfig with ZCML  
and highly -1 on making ZConfig an optional alternative to ZCML at the  
developer's whim. Focus on good, well-defined solutions, not multiple  
choices that only bring confusion, and keep big guns pointed away from  
feet.

Martin, still trying to learn Zope 3 :)
-- 
(muted)