Burak Arslan wrote at 2011-5-24 13:03 +0300: > ... >Please don't misunderstand this as it's my just my honest advice: i wouldn't >keep soaplib, or even if I did, i'd fork rpclib, rename it back to soaplib and >remove non-soap code. That seems a more reasonable approach given the amount >of resources you've dedicated to soaplib development so far.
Names are highly important. Thus, if someone is interested in SOAP (and Python), "soaplib" is directly interesting for him. Background information is necessary, to recognize that "rpclib" may be relevant for him. Thus, I would keep both "soaplib" and "rpclib" -- as names of PyPI released packages. I agree that significant redundant code in both "soaplib" and "rpclib" looks not promising. Based on the names, I would put soap specifics into "soaplib" and let it use by "rpclib". Maybe, we want even a third PyPI package containing non soap related common functionality helpfull for both "soaplib" and "rpclib". -- Dieter _______________________________________________ Soap mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/soap
