[Zope3-dev] Schema Field Names

[kapil thangavelu]

On Monday 15 July 2002 02:51 am, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> kapil thangavelu wrote:
> > this isn't about the implementation code, its about the explicit vs.
> > implicit nature of the semantics of two different naming conventions,
> > which will lead, imo, to one or the other in code which uses that
> > convention.
> >
> > iotw. if use of a field has nothing to do semantically with the use of a
> > python type, why are we naming them that way. why not make the field
> > names explicit?
>
> But I disagree entirely here; the use of a field has *everything*
> to do semantically with the use of a Python type, so that is why they
> should be named accordingly. Schema are intended to be used by *Python
> programmers*. Various use cases in the wiki assume this:

<snip use case cut-n-paste>

> >
> > perhaps a vote is in order?
>
> If the people who vote at least consider the design of this thing and
> the use cases.. Doesn't using the long names increase confusion as to what
> schema are about? You seem to think they are about something else;
> do think we should create our own field hierarchy specific to Zope 3, or
> that we should use XML Schema, or something like that?

just to clarify i did read the schema proposal and its use cases before 
voting.

i feel that there are semantic differences between use of a python type, 
which mainly is used as a factory and converter, and a field which is 
descriptive metadata with an associated validator/converter chain.

-kapil