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. repoze.formapi). > 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 :) \malthe _______________________________________________ Repoze-dev mailing list Repozefirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev