[Zope-dev] zcml vs. not-zcml (was Re: who wants to maintain Zope 3?)

[Chris McDonough]

On 4/13/09 10:33 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> I understand that people like Zope 2 for historical reasons and Grok for it's
>> simplicity, but I would really wonder that there's no target audience for
>> various ideas/patterns in Zope 3 (security model, ZCML...).
>
> There is, but those who prefer ZCML over Grok seems to gravitate
> towards BFG as opposed to Zope 3.

I'll note that you need to write only 1 line of ZCML in BFG to write most BFG 
applications (the line that tells BFG to scan a package for decorators).  BFG is 
not at all like Zope 3 in this respect.  BFG actually uses Grok's "martian" 
package to help with the one common case of declaring an adapter (a view 
adapter).  BFG app developers are not really expected to interact with the ZCA 
via adapter and utility lookups (APIs are provided on top of every other use of 
the CA by the famework), so essentially you can write most applications in BFG 
without knowing anything about interfaces, adapters, or the ZCA at all.

That said, I'm personally not ZCML-hostile, and as a result I write applications 
on top of BFG which have lots of ZCML in them.  But that's not as a result of 
the framework; it's an result of how I like to write applications.

- C