i think the penalty aspect martin mentions (apart from the effort
involved in renaming, which could be spent easily elsewhere) pretty
much does it for me. i rest my case.
cheers,
tom (who may be vain, but not passionately so ;-)
On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 01/02/2008, Tom Lazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i'd like to make a case for 'building the plone brand' not only for
the integrator/user audience (as we already are doing) but also for
the develeoper audience. let's not be too shy or modest here. borg is
as 'plonish' in regard to its cleanliness, documentation,
extensibility etc. as it gets (naturally, with martin being the
author). i think it could make sense to convey this by using the
plone
namespace for it and i'm sure there are other packages, too.
Renaming things means moving module paths. That breaks persistent
objects and third party imports. It effectively penalises those who
used this package (and and thus helped make it stable enough for the
core) already and forks the original code base in case people already
depend on it and thus need to continue to develop it.
We are doing plenty of designed-for-the-core packages in the plone.*
namespace, and honestly I don't think we need to be so vain that we
can't use packages not in our namespace. I think it's a very nice,
positive statement that we don't, in fact.
Martin
_______________________________________________
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
