On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:07 PM, David Glick <davidgl...@groundwire.org> wrote:
> On 10/4/11 9:59 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>> Based on some discussions with Alan Runyan over the last few days,
>> I've created an oodb "package" as a namespace package:
>> My thought is that over time, we'd migrate ZODB and ZODB related
>> packages there. Certainly, I wish that ZODB was a namespace package.
>> I'd have prefered "odb", but that's sort of taken.
> What are the benefits of this change that would outweigh the hassle of
> modules moving?
First, module moving isn't a priority. Alan thought it would be good to group
related packages into an umbrella namespace. This might initially apply
to add-ons, like zc.zlibstoprage, appendonly, or relstorage.
Second, it would be useful for packages that we want to break off or
change in backward-incompatible ways, like persistent, ZEO, or
even BTrees. In the later case, we might, for example, create a
new version that dropped some of the legacy features.
I wouldn't want to be hasty about moving anything.
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org