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

[Chris Withers]

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