|
From: Philipp v. W. <ph...@we...> - 2003-06-16 02:45:34
|
Craeg K Strong wrote: >> Yeah, quite crufty. However, first checking the XML whether any XML >> schema is mentioned and then offering a manual input seems the best >> solution for this problem. > > Yikes! Impossible. Remember that a single instance of > xxxValidateMethod will be applied to *many* different XML documents. > Some of those documents might explicitly mention a schema, some might > not. In fact, you might add an xxxValidateMethod before *any* XML > documents exist. Same as XSLTMethod and XPathMethod, no? Yes, like XSLTMethod or XPathMethod. > Oh. In the absence of anything else, I like Validator more, because > it best describes what we are doing. However, if the interface > becomes more general than that, I would support renaming. We can > evolve this as necessary (at least until we make an official release > :-) +1 >>> Yes. The choice is pretty simple: >>> a) DTDValidateMethod, SchematronValidateMethod, etc. all inheriting >>> from a ValidateMethod base class (cleaner, more OO) or >>> b) A single XMLValidateMethod class, and you set a property to >>> indicate the validation method you wish. (less clean, but maybe less >>> code, fewer externally visible moving parts) >> >> I'd go with b). > > Do you still vote for this, even after my "Yikes!" comment (above)? I'd still prefer b) but I can see where you're coming from. So, lazy as I am, I leave the solution up to you :) Sorry, I know this doesn't help you... >> I'd say zope:// sounds good, but I'm not sure whether we'd want >> file://. Maybe file:// would be zope:// and we wouldn't have to invent >> another protocol prefix? This would ease things for 3rd party products >> that would "mount" the ZODB over FTP, WebDAV or whatever and rever to >> the entities over the file:// protocol. > > Yeah. This is getting into VFS territory. This is not something I am > motivated to explore in Zope2. But we'd still like to resolve URIs... > However, I really think Zope3 needs to do something here. Of course, > I am speaking from ignorance. There may already be good stuff going > on there. My plan is to dive in as soon as the 3X beta happens ~ 1 > month(?) There is nothing VFS-like in Zope3. There are traversal components, but HTTP, FTP and WebDAV interfaces are management by views, there's no VFS-layer (there actually existed one, but it was ripped out because it was not considered over-kill). With respect to the "correct" time to dive into Zope3, I can only say: there's no "correct" time. I'm not sure whether the beta will be any more useful than the code right now. I am currently seeing a lot of refactorings going on, not actual additions to the code. Phil |
