Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming
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 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
Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming
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 > > 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. Graham ___ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming
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 package: repoze.cms Rather than needing to come up with a name like: PhantasmaCMS > I am of the opinion that it hurts the potential adoption of some of the > great packages and is a little misleading in some cases. It does, and it is. > So I am in agreement with Malthe on this. I have thought the very same > thing he is talking about here often. TBH, I'm not really very worried about it for middleware packages and such. For larger things like BFG, yeah. But we have bw compat concerns, and so on and so on. So.. it is what it is. - C ___ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming
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 misleading in some cases. So I am in agreement with Malthe on this. I have thought the very same thing he is talking about here often. -Nathan Van Gheem On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:33 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 > > and clash-prone. > > It does not a claiming of a namespace, it's a usage. Obviously other > parties are free to use it too. > > > You think so? First of all, repoze != zope, and secondly, I'd rather > > hope people had grown out of discarding code based on a name or a > > namespace. With all the reach-out work Chris and others have done, I'd > > be surprised if the repoze.* name was turning people off. > > I think my worry with repoze.* is that it claims to want to be > "plumbing Zope into the WSGI Pipeline"; that might be deprecated, but > as it is, repoze as a project has some sort of direction, it's not > just a group of contributors. Some of the software I've contributed > under the repoze name is not very much related to this direction (e.g. > repoze.formapi). > > > Plone people (and me personally) prefer to "own" a namespace. What if > > someone else had the idea to call something Chameleon, which is not > > entirely unlikely? What about a more generic name? Must we always come > > up with a suitably quirky name when a more functional one would do? > > I agree to some extent; but certain pieces of software benefit from > having a real name. > > > Incidentally, I bloggedt about this stuff in the context of Plone > > yesterday: > > > http://martinaspeli.net/articles/the-naming-of-things-package-names-and-namespaces/ > > Yes, I saw it; I'm not sure we're in alignment although I'm not sure > we're not :) > > \malthe > ___ > Repoze-dev mailing list > Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org > http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev > ___ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming
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 namespace, it's a usage. Obviously other parties are free to use it too. > You think so? First of all, repoze != zope, and secondly, I'd rather > hope people had grown out of discarding code based on a name or a > namespace. With all the reach-out work Chris and others have done, I'd > be surprised if the repoze.* name was turning people off. I think my worry with repoze.* is that it claims to want to be "plumbing Zope into the WSGI Pipeline"; that might be deprecated, but as it is, repoze as a project has some sort of direction, it's not just a group of contributors. Some of the software I've contributed under the repoze name is not very much related to this direction (e.g. repoze.formapi). > Plone people (and me personally) prefer to "own" a namespace. What if > someone else had the idea to call something Chameleon, which is not > entirely unlikely? What about a more generic name? Must we always come > up with a suitably quirky name when a more functional one would do? I agree to some extent; but certain pieces of software benefit from having a real name. > Incidentally, I bloggedt about this stuff in the context of Plone > yesterday: > http://martinaspeli.net/articles/the-naming-of-things-package-names-and-namespaces/ Yes, I saw it; I'm not sure we're in alignment although I'm not sure we're not :) \malthe ___ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
Re: [Repoze-dev] Package naming
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 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. > I'm not sure this ``repoze.*`` notion is very healthy in terms of > getting traction outside the Zope-community, although .what and .who > have gained some popularity in spite of their nebulous namespace. You think so? First of all, repoze != zope, and secondly, I'd rather hope people had grown out of discarding code based on a name or a namespace. With all the reach-out work Chris and others have done, I'd be surprised if the repoze.* name was turning people off. If anything, it seems that people from "outside" equate "repoze" with repoze.who being used in TG2. :) > What's the feeling on brand-like names such as ``WebOb``, or > ``Routes``? That might be the right approach for more conceptual > packages. At least that's my motivation for naming the new package > ``Chameleon``. I think .who might fall in this category, not being > just a library, but something more conceptual, e.g. ``Who``. Plone people (and me personally) prefer to "own" a namespace. What if someone else had the idea to call something Chameleon, which is not entirely unlikely? What about a more generic name? Must we always come up with a suitably quirky name when a more functional one would do? Incidentally, I bloggedt about this stuff in the context of Plone yesterday: http://martinaspeli.net/articles/the-naming-of-things-package-names-and-namespaces/ Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
