On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Christian Tismer <tis...@stackless.com> wrote:
> Third rant, dear Zope-Friends (and I mean it as friends!).
> In an attempt to make the ZODB a small, independant package, ZODB
> has been split into many modules.
Maybe not as many as you think:
persistent, transaction, ZEO, ZODB and BTrees.
> I appreciate that, while I think it partially has the opposite effect:
> - splitting BTrees apart is a good idea per se.
> But the way as it is, it adds more Namespace-pollution than benefits:
> To make sense of BTrees, you need the ZODB, and only the ZODB!
> So, why should then BTrees be a top-level module at all?
> This does not feel natural, but eavesdropping, pretending as something
> that is untrue.
> I think:
> - BTrees should either be a ZODB sub-package in its current state,
> - or a real stand-alone package with some way of adding persistence as
> an option.
I don't agree that because a package depends on ZODB
it should be in ZODB. There are lots of packages that depend
I agree with your sentiments about namespace pollution.
You and I may be the only ones that care though .3 ;).
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org