On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@enovance.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Le mardi 8 avril 2014, 10:54:24 Julien Danjou a écrit : >> On Mon, Apr 07 2014, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> > We can avoid adding to the problem by putting each new library in its >> > own package. We still want the Oslo name attached for libraries that >> > are really only meant to be used by OpenStack projects, and so we need >> > a naming convention. I'm not entirely happy with the "crammed >> > together" approach for oslotest and oslosphinx. At one point Dims and >> > I talked about using a prefix "oslo_" instead of just "oslo", so we >> > would have "oslo_db", "oslo_i18n", etc. That's also a bit ugly, >> > though. Opinions? >> >> Honestly, I think it'd be better to not have oslo at all and use >> independent - if possible explicit - names for everything > > I agree. > > "oslo" name remembers me the "zope" fiasco. Except of zope.interfaces and the > ZODB, I don't think that any Zope module was widely used outside Zope and it > was a big fail. Because of that, Zope 3 restarted almost from scratch with > small independent modules. > > "oslo" and "openstack.common" look more and more like Zope bloated modules. > For example, Oslo Incubator has 44 dependencies. Who outside OpenStack would > like to use a module which has 44 dependencies? Especially if you need a > single module like timeutils. > > "nova.openstack.common.timeutils" name doesn't look correct: the Zen of Python > says "Flat is better than nested": "xxx.timeutils" would be better. Same > remark for "oslo.config.cfg" => "xxx.cfg". > > Choosing a name is hard. Dropping "oslo" requires to find a completly new > name. > For example, "oslo.config" cannot be renamed to "config", this name is already > used on PyPI. Same issue for "messaging" (and "message" is also reserved).
Right, that's the challenge. I would like for us to continue to use the oslo prefix in some cases, because it makes naming simple libraries easier but more importantly because it is an indicator that we intend those libraries to be much more useful to OpenStack projects than to anyone else. For projects where that isn't the case (cliff, stevedore, taskflow, tooz, etc.) we are already choosing "non-branded" names. > > "oslo.rootwrap" can be simply renamed to "rootwrap". > > Other suggestions: > > * olso.config => cmdconfig > * olso.messaging => msqqueue > > Victor _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
