[Zope3-dev] RFC: zcml:condition

[Dieter Maurer]

Martijn Faassen wrote at 2005-2-21 11:51 +0100:
>Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote at 2005-2-18 12:09 +0100:
>> 
>>>...
>>>Not as powerful as before, which is good.
>>  
>> -1
>
>I wasn't proposing something here, so it's rather weird that you say -1..

The "-1" indicates: I do not share your opinion on the "which is good".

> ...
>>>External ZCML processors might 
>>>mostly try to ignore this, though that also depends on how conflicts are 
>>>dealt with -- see my question below.
>> 
>> In another message use gave pretty printing and validation
>> as examples. I think, they could ignore it without problem...
>
>I also listed analysis tools, which do not exist yet, but why make life 
>harder on them?

Because minimal expressive power may make configuration harder, i.e. the
*primary* purpose of ZCML.

>The general principle is to keep the language declarative and try to 
>keep it independent from external state. The more such dependencies you 
>add to it the lesser the chance any static analysis tool can make sense 
>of it without having to load up the full Zope 3 codebase

I do not see it as a problem to use Zope code for
demanding analysis tools.

, and I also 
>think the understandability for the user also decreases.

For me "have XXX" is better readable (and understandable) than "ifXXX".
And "(have XXX) or (have YYY)" would be also understandable
without a problem.


-- 
Dieter