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.

5 <shrug>

> 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
on ZODB.

I agree with your sentiments about namespace pollution.
You and I may be the only ones that care though .3 ;).


Jim Fulton
For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to