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

[Jim Fulton]

Fred Drake wrote:
> On 1/22/06, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
> 
>>Do you understand that this proposal isn't proposing any new syntaxes?
> 
> 
> Do I understand correctly that you're proposing adding a way to spell
> ZConfig configuration schema using ZCML?

No, I'm proposing replacing the ZConfig implementation with one based on
the ZCML engine. This would mean that ZConfig configuration options
would be defined using ZCML's meta configuration rather than
using ZConfig schemas and components.

> 
>>You do, of course, realize that we already have 2 configuration syntaxes,
>>ZCML and ZConfig.  Are you suggesting that we drop one of them?  The proposal
>>only proposes consolidating their implementation so that there is only one
>>system for defining configuration directives,
> 
> 
> Do you mean that you want to replace the way ZConfig schema are
> defined, or that you want to introduce a second way?
> 
> If the former, I expect you'll get a backlash from folks that use
> ZConfig outside of Zope; it is a standalone library now.  This should
> be discussed on the ZConfig list.
> 
> If the later, we'll need to add API to ZConfig to allow schema to be
> constructed programmatically.  This could be done without impacting
> existing ZConfig users.

No, I want to ditch the ZConfig machinery, keeping the format.
I don't want to maintain 2 engines. People who use the existing ZConfig
implemenation outside of Zope can continue to do so.  The proposal has no
impact on the existing ZConfig implementation.  Zope (initially
Zope 3) would simply cease to use it.

Jim

-- 
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