Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> 
> On Nov 3, 8:33 am, Malthe Borch <mbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> If you are talking about package/module naming then no others aren't
> really free to use it. Once someone uses it, becomes impossible for
> others to use it, including the Python distribution itself or any
> package which comes out of any specifications/standards based process
> from the Python WEB-SIG. Even in other contexts it would be a bad
> idea.
> 
> So, leave unadorned 'wsgi' specifically for Python WEB-SIG and any
> standards associated with original WSGI PEP 333. One should even avoid
> quite generic variations on the name, ie. prefixes or suffixes added,
> as again the Python WEB-SIG can also seen to have some prior/higher
> rights on those as well.

While I'm not the arbiter of prior art wrt to the "wsgi" namespace, I do agree 
that if you don't want to use the repoze namespace, don't use it.

- C

_______________________________________________
Repoze-dev mailing list
Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org
http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev

Reply via email to