Hanno Schlichting schrieb:
[..]
In addition I think we need some kind of explanation of what kind of
packages should live in plone.* at all and when you should write a
mxm.product, enfold.product or a simple exampleproduct without a
namespace. While I think there is no clear rule when to do this, we
could at least add some pointers. Like:
1) Packages that are meant to be included in the Plone Core product
should live in one of these two namespaces (as long as they use
current Zope3 best practices and are not some old Zope2 code).
2) All packages using the plone.* namespace have to be developed in
the Plone SVN repository and thus the copyright have to be owned by
the Plone Foundation.
Good point. We definitively should provide some suggestions here.
Along those lines: it wouldn't hurt to specify what's usually meant
by "re-usable code":
- reusable in plain Python (plus zope.interfaces)
- reusable in any Zope (3) environment (e.g., union cms, school tools, ...)
- reusable in any CMF-based project (aka CPS, ...)
- reusable in any Plone-based project
Should we even encourage people to split up there code to such a level
of granularity? Or is "needs Zope only" versus "needs Plone"
considered sufficient.
Raphael
_______________________________________________
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
