2012/4/17 Martin Aspeli <[email protected]> > On 17 April 2012 02:44, Érico Andrei <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello guys, > > > > I would like to present you collective.grok, a package bringing Grok and > > Martian to Generic Setup and i18n registrations in Plone. > > Cool ;) > > Could we please find a better name? This is hugely confusing when > there is 'grok' and 'five.grok' already, and this covers only a very > specific (but two unrelated?) use cases. >
Agreed. The name has been torpedoed a lot so far ;-) I went for collective.grok as a way to allow an umbrella of components under it -- Generic Setup, Portlets, Transmogrifier -- and keep a parallelism with five.grok, but I think a better name is needed. > > We have been using plone.directives.* as a namespace before. Could that > work? > It is much better :-) > I'm against trying to create these types of 'mega packages' that cover > lots of functionality. What do we do if (when) we deprecate portlets, > for instance? And is everyone going to want transmogrifier as a > dependency? Better to have specific packages, like > plone.directives.form and plone.directives.dexterity. > David has a very good point (in the next email on this thread) when he points it will be a trade off between managing dependencies/having a lot of smaller packages and dealing with not available "extensions". Anyway, this is up for discussion. best, ea
_______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-product-developers
