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 Repozeemail@example.com http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev