Am 21.01.2007 um 01:07 schrieb Noah Kantrowitz: > On Jan 19, 2007, at 1:05 AM, John Hampton wrote: >> I'm definitely +1 on the merge too. However, why not add tracext? I >> like the idea of having third party plugins use a different >> namespace, >> even though it's not technically *needed*. Any reason why adding >> tracenv is a bad idea with the advent of the global plugins folder? > > 1. It is an abuse of the namespacing stuff in setuptools. All plugins > are not part of a single package.
The idea was to avoid having hundreds of plugins using naming conventions such as trac_xyz or tracxxx poluting the Python root package namespace (e.g. imagine pydoc output with many plugins installed.) I don't actually care much about this, myself, and would be absolutely willing to drop it from the proposal. > 2. Redundancy is bad. This offers no new functionality really. What does that have to do with redundancy? > 3. It makes it adds one more step to making a plugin. Using the namespace would of course be completely optional. > 4. It makes it somewhat harder to interface "normal" code with > plugins, as the namespacing system in setuptools is rather weird. Can you elaborate on this point? What kind of problems have you encountered with namespace packages? Thanks, Chris -- Christopher Lenz cmlenz at gmx.de http://www.cmlenz.net/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
