Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
> On Nov 3, 8:33 am, Malthe Borch wrote:
>> 2009/11/2 Martin Aspeli :
>>
>>> 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 seem
On Nov 3, 8:33 am, Malthe Borch wrote:
> 2009/11/2 Martin Aspeli :
>
> > 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
> >
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 pa
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 misl
2009/11/2 Martin Aspeli :
> 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 namespa
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 pa
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 9:17 am, Chris McDonough 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.w
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 no
On Nov 2, 9:17 am, Chris McDonough 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
> rout
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 Zope-com
10 matches
Mail list logo
