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

Oops...  just ran into something while reviewing my doc patch...  what 
about "handler"?  What should its inheritance semantics be?  At the moment, 
"handler" is defined exclusively by the "most specific" schema file, but it 
seems like maybe it should follow the same "inherit unless conflicting or 
overriden" logic that "keytype" and "datatype" do.

For now, I'm going to finish up what I've done as-is, since it is at worst 
an inconvenience in a new feature.  But I'd like to know if you think there 
are any issues with having "handler" follow the same rules.