Fred Drake wrote:

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 "" 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.


I have not done anything with z3 yet, tough we intend to start working with it soon.
We have a number of products that are mostly plain python within a thin zope-shell.
Since we probably would like to use them in z3 and must maintain them in z2 I would like to see a way to mix the two.


Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to