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'm not sure this ``repoze.*`` notion is very healthy in terms of
getting traction outside the
On Nov 2, 9:17 am, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
repoze.bfg 1.1b1 has been released.
...
- If a BFG app that had a route matching the root URL was mounted
under a path in modwsgi, ala ``WSGIScriptAlias /myapp
/Users/chrism/projects/modwsgi/env/bfg.wsgi``, the home route (a
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
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:17 am, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
repoze.bfg 1.1b1 has been released.
...
- If a BFG app that had a route matching the root URL was mounted
under a path in modwsgi, ala ``WSGIScriptAlias /myapp
repoze.bfg 1.1b2 has been released. Yes, I know the releases have been coming
at an unreasonable pace, sorry.
You can install it via:
easy_install -i http://dist.repoze.org/bfg/1.1/simple repoze.bfg
*or*, now that I've worked out a niggling bug that made installing it from PyPI
a bit
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
Hello all,
I realize my opinion may not matter very much, but as one who uses many of
the repoze packages often, I often wondered why the repoze namespace was
used for many of the packages.
I am of the opinion that it hurts the potential adoption of some of the
great packages and is a little
Nathan Van Gheem wrote:
Hello all,
I realize my opinion may not matter very much, but as one who uses many
of the repoze packages often, I often wondered why the repoze namespace
was used for many of the packages.
Because we're lazy and unoriginal. And we like being able to name a
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
