Fred Drake wrote:
I think site is widely understood term in Zope 3 now and everyone knows
about it. We gain absolutely nothing by renaming it. I think zope.site
would be a great package name for ISite and friends.
Widely understood, yes. Frankly, I've *never* liked it, because it
doesn't
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Fred Drake wrote:
I think site is widely understood term in Zope 3 now and everyone
knows
about it. We gain absolutely nothing by renaming it. I think zope.site
would be a great package name for ISite and friends.
Widely understood, yes. Frankly, I've *never* liked it,
On 10 Aug 2007, at 04:03 , Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 09 August 2007 14:59, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
When we moved stuff out of zope.app, we made the mistake of
overloading
zope.component. I wouldn't want to make that mistake again. That's
why I
don't think it should go into
Michael Howitz wrote:
zope.app.component.interfaces.ISite is used in (at least) zope.location,
so the site concept seems to be necessary outside zope.app.
It seem so. Please also see my reply to Roman's email.
I think, ISite should be migrated to zope.component or even (if it has
nothing to
On Thursday 09 August 2007 14:59, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
When we moved stuff out of zope.app, we made the mistake of overloading
zope.component. I wouldn't want to make that mistake again. That's why I
don't think it should go into zope.component. I was once close to moving
ISite out
On 8/9/07, Stephan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, the site concept is about locality, which is a concept on top of
zope.component.
Perhaps a reasonable description; I'd describe it more as a tool for
internal organization of an application.
I think site is widely understood term in
