On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:15:05 -0700, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On a related note, why osaf.pim? why not just "chandler"? I'm guessing
the argument is that you could reuse these objects outside of chandler,
which seems nice.. though even the osaf prefix seems superfluous to me..
It's common practice in Python projects of this size that also expose a
development platform or framework to use a namespace package to prefix
package names, e.g. twisted.*, zope.*, peak.*. The second level name
then usually exposes major functional areas, and then the third level is
preferably all modules, and no further packages except for "*.tests"
packages.
Another thing: inside the top python chandler/, there's a bunch of subdirs
that do not contain parcels: repository/, application/, tools/... All
parcels under "osaf" makes sense for that reason too.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
