[Zope3-dev] One namespace for ZCML

[Martijn Faassen]

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Stephan Richter wrote:
> 
>>- You do not argue how the decision-making process is "highly inconsistent".
> 
> 
> Fair enough. I will update the proposal later. Supper first :).
> 
> 
>>- I do not understand what's so bad about coming up with your 3rd-party ZCML
>>directives. They are extremely easy to write and use. I think that 3rd-party
>>ZCML directives are not a bad thing. And yes, I would like to keep those in
>>a separate namespace.
> 
> 
> Sure, it's easy to write ZCML directives. It's also possible to write ZCML
> directives that are easy to use, but just as well to write ones that are hard
> to use. So your generalization above is a bit too, well, general :).
> 
> The problem is uncontrolled ZCML directive proliferation. It's "bad" enough
> that you have to familiarize yourself with a new API when dealing with a 3rd
> party Zope package. But having to learn a new set of ZCML directives?!? I
> think many people would be skeptical. Me included.

I don't see the problem with learning new ZCML directives when I'm 
learning a new package. I can see why you'd like to reduce the 
occurence, and I think sometimes configuring things in ZCML is actually 
doing it in the wrong place, as information needs to be persistent 
sometimes. Learning a new ZCML directive is the least of my concern when 
learning how to use a new package, however.

Moreover, sometimes a package introduces new ways to configure 
components. Five does so, for instance, and Silva will too eventually.

> As we have learned that we can reduce nearly all component tasks to adapters
> and utilities, many tasks revolving around registration and configuration of
> policy also only involve adapters and utilities. By using those "elementary"
> directives we can stimulate the learning process for developers ("there should
> only be one way of doing things"). Yes, you might have to use two or three
> directives instead of just one new one, but you'll know what you're doing...
> And you'll remember it in 2 months. I think that's more valuable than saving a
> couple of lines today.

I think I disagree with this one too; the situation is at least rather 
more subtle. Sometimes a new, short directive is a lot easier to 
remember than to remember long.dotted.names.pointing.to.places and 3 
directives. Having to remember (or worse, look up) long dotted names is 
extremely common in ZCML and I consider it at least as big a problem as 
having to learn directives. Let's use abstraction and naming things 
where it makes sense.

Heh, perhaps we need to go the other way and add a namespace directive 
for long dotted names instead. :)

> That said, there might still be a small percentage of cases where custom
> directives are a valid tool. I can accept their being on the same namespace as
> others. In fact, I would like it to be that way, reducing the amount of dead
> chickens (namespace declarations).

Namespace declarations are not dead chickens. They're things that the 
XML language requires. Indentation and colons are not dead chickens in 
Python either. *particular* namespace declarations may be unnecessary - 
but not dead chickens, just perhaps the wrong solution.

Regards,

Martijn