Re: Could it be possible to support configuring with *.cfg instead of *.zcml?

The current zcml approach is not that bad. People coming from outside 
python projects are used to xml based configuration. So it is not that 
exotic too.

I'am not sure if ini-style configuration solves the problem. From my 
observations theres are two mindsets out in the wild:
1) do all configuration in python,
2) do it using a configuration file.

For (1) I think zcml is fine. Adding another configuration language for 
the same problem does not make it better. It just add confusion and 
incompatibility.

For (2) we have grok. But even if I like to use python for configuration 
I never adopted grok. Theres too much implicit magic in it. I like the 
way Pyramid solved the problem using python: Explicit, easy to 
understand and pluggable.

So in my opinion we should better improve the way for (2) and keep (1) 
as is - maybe we could document it better (theres always room to improve 
docs ;) )?

regards
Jensens

On 2013-11-23 22:42, Asko Soukka wrote:
> Ahem, just continuing after accidental send:
>
> Asko Soukka wrote:
>> The benefit would be that add-on developer could write configure.cfg:
>>
>> [browser:page:uniquepostfix]
>> name = hello-world
>> for = *
>> class = .view.FooBar
>> permission = zope2.View
>>
>> instead of configure.zcml
>
> <configure
>       xmlns="http://namespaces.zope.org/zope"
>       xmlns:browser="http://namespaces.zope.org/browser">
>
>       <browser:page
>           name="hello-world"
>           for="*"
>           class=".view.FooBar"
>           permission="zope2.View"
>           />
>
> </configure>
>
> Cfg may not be significantly better than zcml, just not xml.
>
> What all issues would there be left to be solved?
>
> At least, cfg would be flatter. I have no idea, where directives inside
> directives are really needed, so I don't know can everything be
> implemented in cfgs.
>
> It should not difficult to support zcml:condition, so conditional
> sections could be solved into conditional include-directives.
>
> Cfg-sections would need to be unique, which would require something
> dummy after the directive name.
>
> Do we have any colliding namespaces, which would prevent fixing e.g.
> that browser to always mean http://namespaces.zope.org/browser
>
> Directives ZCMLs are executed in order. Forcing order with cfg would
> need something like "require = section:name" (like in puppet).
>
>> I made a very naive experiment:
>>
>> https://github.com/datakurre/collective.cfgconfig
>
> Cheers,
> Asko
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription
> Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation.
> Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing
> conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>


-- 
Klein & Partner KG, member of BlueDynamics Alliance


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT 
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance 
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your 
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk