Baiju M wrote:
>> The packages that we might want to break out (like we did with
>> Acquistion, ExtensionClass, DateTime) should retain their name, so
>> nobody has to change any code to work with them.
>
> I think we could have added those packages in a namespace.
Why? A million things depend on
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Baiju M wrote:
>> I was going through Zope 2 source code today. There are 20+ top-level
>> packages specific to Zope 2. Would it be useful if we move those packages
>> to a top-level namespace package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Baiju M wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Baiju M wrote:
>> Hi,
>>I was going through Zope 2 source code today. There are 20+ top-level
>> packages specific to Zope 2. Would it be useful if we move those packages
>> to a top-level namespa
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Baiju M wrote:
> I was going through Zope 2 source code today. There are 20+ top-level
> packages specific to Zope 2. Would it be useful if we move those packages
> to a top-level namespace package. I mean something similar to:
> "zope.app.*", "grokcore.*", "r
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Baiju M wrote:
> Hi,
> I was going through Zope 2 source code today. There are 20+ top-level
> packages specific to Zope 2. Would it be useful if we move those packages
> to a top-level namespace package. I mean something similar to:
> "zope.app.*", "grokcore.