Malthe Borch wrote:
> Perhaps packages which provide middleware functionality should be
> named ``wsgi.*``, e.g. ``wsgi.bitblt`` or ``wsgi.who`` and we'd opt
> similar namespaces for packages that belong to other realms.

I think it's better to use top-level namespaces to indicate ownership, 
if nothing else to avoid the chance of things clashing. For the repoze 
project to "claim" the wsgi.* namespace seems both a bit presumteuous 
and clash-prone.

> I'm not sure this ``repoze.*`` notion is very healthy in terms of
> getting traction outside the Zope-community, although .what and .who
> have gained some popularity in spite of their nebulous namespace.

You think so? First of all, repoze != zope, and secondly, I'd rather 
hope people had grown out of discarding code based on a name or a 
namespace. With all the reach-out work Chris and others have done, I'd 
be surprised if the repoze.* name was turning people off.

If anything, it seems that people from "outside" equate "repoze" with 
repoze.who being used in TG2. :)

> What's the feeling on brand-like names such as ``WebOb``, or
> ``Routes``? That might be the right approach for more conceptual
> packages. At least that's my motivation for naming the new package
> ``Chameleon``. I think .who might fall in this category, not being
> just a library, but something more conceptual, e.g. ``Who``.

Plone people (and me personally) prefer to "own" a namespace. What if 
someone else had the idea to call something Chameleon, which is not 
entirely unlikely? What about a more generic name? Must we always come 
up with a suitably quirky name when a more functional one would do?

Incidentally, I bloggedt about this stuff in the context of Plone 


Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See

Repoze-dev mailing list

Reply via email to