On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 12:43:56PM -0800, Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > >> What clearly identifies MiddleKit and UserKit as being part of > >> Webware any more than *Utils?
The Webware project is (or will be) known as "the organization that provides *Kit", just like Egenix is "the company that provides mx.*" and Zope is "the project that uses Z*". We have de-facto ownership of *Kit because nobody previously claimed it, so it would be gauche for anybody else to release a "*Kit" module either (1) at all, or (2) not conforming to the Webware *Kit structuring conventions. > No one else is using the names, MiscUtils and WebUtils. > > I anticipate that I could use MiscUtils in future open source projects > outside of Webware, in which case I will facilitate the release of > standalone versions of these. They are catch-alls because we need catch > alls and because it encourages us to refrain from carelessly tying these > classes and functions into WebKit such that they can't be used > independently. > > They're here to stay. *utils, however, is one of the first terms many Python projects and local admins would consider for their miscellaneous modules, just like *lib. So it's unfair for us to monopolize it. Nor should we expect the local sysadmin to immediately connote Webware when he encounters a module called MiscUtils or WebUtils. How about WWMiscUtils & WWWebUtils, or ChuckMiscUtils & ChuckWebUtils, or ceMiscUtils & ceWebUtils (using Chuck's initials)? Those names are much less generic, thus making others feel better about giving Chuck "ownership" of those prefixes. -- -Mike (Iron) Orr, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (if mail problems: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://iron.cx/ English * Esperanto * Russkiy * Deutsch * Espan~ol _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
