Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming

2009-11-02 Thread Chris McDonough
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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming

2009-11-02 Thread Graham Dumpleton
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 > >

Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming

2009-11-02 Thread Chris McDonough
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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming

2009-11-02 Thread Nathan Van Gheem
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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming

2009-11-02 Thread Malthe Borch
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

Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming

2009-11-02 Thread Martin Aspeli
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

[Repoze-dev] Package naming

2009-11-02 Thread Malthe Borch
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