On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 08:59:44AM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
| >So, what about this:
| >zope.interfaces (?)
| >zope.schema (soon-to-be-dead?)
| >- All move to 'ca.*'
| Most of this has nothing to do with the component architecture.
| "ca" has nothing to do with zope.
So that's the intention. If it has nothing to do with zope, why it
should be prefixed with 'zope'?
I may have been unlucky on trying to enumerate the packages. I was
trying to figure out what kind of stuff would be useful in the context
of zope2. Maybe you can enumerate what packages are part of the
component architecture, and what packages would be used in zope2? I
have a feeling that most stuff in zope.app would not be used in zope2,
but I'm mostly surely wrong.
| >- Move down to 'zope'.
| This doesn't solve name-conflict the problem. Or maybe I don't understand
| what you
| are proposing.
Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://awkly.org - dreamcatching :: making your dreams come true
The most important early product on the way to developing a good product
is an imperfect version.
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -