[Zope3-dev] ZConfig schema extensibility q's

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 12:58 PM 10/3/03 -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:

>  > So, does that basically mean that:
>  >
>  > http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2003-September/008647.html
>  >
>  > is the way we should go?  (I.e. no inheritance of valuetype, and
>  > keytype/datatype must match on all bases or be specified?)
>
>I still think it makes sense that keytype must match on all bases, or
>the sanity checks get too complex for practical purposes.  See:
>
>http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2003-September/008649.html

At this point I'm planning on checking that the keytype (and for that 
matter, the datatype) are the same object in all bases, OR the extending 
schema must specify the type explicitly.


>(Whether the sanity checking happens at the application's runtime or
>out of band is almost irrelevant I think.)

I'm figuring that if you explicitly specify the datatype in the extending 
schema, you should get whatever you asked for.  :)


>  > For the specific situation listed, that's the minimum requirement, but 
> I'd
>  > guess that sometimes people will want to add other top-level keys that 
> are
>  > specific to their application, in which case they will also be redefining
>  > the datatype.
>
>I'm not sure that "guessing" constitutes a reasonable use case, but
>that in part depends on the nature of the "guess".  ;-)

Well, it's based on the expectation that *I* will need to do this, so I 
"guess" that others will too.  :)

Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and sync up PEAK's copy of ZConfig to today's 
Zope3 CVS, work up a new "extends" patch and tests, then port it 
back.  I'll just be doing the schema extension support at this point, not 
top-level key/section overrides.