Jim Fulton noted:
 > Of course, having two packages with names differing only in case is a
 > bit ugly.
 > Do we want to consider renaming one or both of these packages
 > to avoid the conflict?

A bit ugly, but I can live with it.

On Tuesday 13 April 2004 22:17, Tres Seaver wrote:
 > -1 to renaming 'Zope';  the amount of third-party code which we would
 > break is incalculable.  -0 to renaming 'zope' to 'z3', or something;  at
 > least third party code for Zope3 was built in the test-driven culture,
 > and has at least some chance of migrating cleanly with confidence.

On Tuesday 13 April 2004 10:44 pm, Stephan Richter wrote:
 > You wanna rename 'zope' to 'z3' for the purpose of merging the two? I
 > really hope that will not be the case. Or is this for Zope 2 only?
 > I would hate to have imports like "z3.app.foo" or even "z3.i18n". I am
 > definitely -1 on this option, if it also applies to standalone Zope 3.

Tres has a good objection, *if* we actually expect 3rd-party Zope 2 code to 
work in Zope 3.  (I don't know if we have this requirement or not; I've no 
personal interest in doing so.)

If we don't expect 3rd-party Zope 2 code to work in Zope 3, then the second 
entry on sys.path seems good enough; having a collection of code identified 
by two different names is unworkable.  (Think absolute imports here.)

Any requirement that states 3rd-party Zope 2 code work in Zope 3 will have to 
be worked out; that's the key here.


Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fred at zope.com>
PythonLabs at Zope Corporation

Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to