[Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
Chris Withers
chris at simplistix.co.uk
Tue Jan 24 04:56:45 EST 2006
Fred Drake wrote:
> On 1/23/06, Chris Withers <chris at simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>As I said earlier, I think XML is wrong for configuration for exactly
>>this kind of reason... element-based is right for this type of config,
>>it's why Apache uses, it's why Zope 2 uses it, and it's why Zope 3 uses
>>it for the .conf file...
>
> There are no elements in the ZConfig configuration language.
'elements', a word with too many meanings ;-)
> Sections, yes, but as has been noted, those don't trivially map to XML
> elements.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that...
>>...some might even say it's bizarre to suddenly switch to a different
>>language just because you're going off to include another .conf file, as
>>site.zcml is from zope.conf...
>
> Odd; I've never thought of zope.conf as including site.zcml.
I didn't deliberately, but then I saw the line in zope.conf and it
really reminded by of a ZConfig 'include'...
> It
> identifies an application configuration that should be used, but
> that's it.
And what does zope.conf do then? ;-)
I see them both as configuring a zope instance, I don't see the need to
for 2 configuration languages...
> The zope.conf file and the ZCML files really do have different
> audiences:
I think that's arguable, but not important. Even if there were two
audiences, why the need for two config languages?
> languages be different, but I think it's clearly wrong to hand system
> administrators an XML configuration syntax.
Why?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
More information about the Zope3-dev
mailing list