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 -