2009/11/2 Martin Aspeli <optilude+li...@gmail.com>:
> 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.

It does not a claiming of a namespace, it's a usage. Obviously other
parties are free to use it too.

> 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.

I think my worry with repoze.* is that it claims to want to be
"plumbing Zope into the WSGI Pipeline"; that might be deprecated, but
as it is, repoze as a project has some sort of direction, it's not
just a group of contributors. Some of the software I've contributed
under the repoze name is not very much related to this direction (e.g.

> 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?

I agree to some extent; but certain pieces of software benefit from
having a real name.

> Incidentally, I bloggedt about this stuff in the context of Plone
> yesterday:
> http://martinaspeli.net/articles/the-naming-of-things-package-names-and-namespaces/

Yes, I saw it; I'm not sure we're in alignment although I'm not sure
we're not :)

Repoze-dev mailing list

Reply via email to