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 -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at zope.com> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
