On Friday 16 April 2004 03:06 pm, Michael Bernstein wrote:
 > Shouldn't we strive for consistency in nomenclature going forward?

Definately.  My point was that we don't have anything to base it on, not that 
we shouldn't be.

Zope 3 kindly specifies some guidelines for naming, including module and 
package names.  I'm not convinced "z" follows those guidelines (actually, I'm 
also not convinced it doesn't, given that the official expansion for ZOPE is 
the "Z Object Publishing Environment").

 > About even considering a 'wholesale moving and renaming' yes, obviously,
 > but as far as suggesting 'OPE' as an alternative to 'z' (insofar as it
 > is still necessary to avoid a name-clash with 'Zope'), no. 'OPE' (as an
 > acronym for Object Publishing Environment) seems like it fits better
 > conceptually than 'z'.

>From where I stand, calling it "OPE" (or "ope", or "Ope") are all the same 
mistake as "Interface", "transaction", "persistent", "Persistence", etc: 
taking a very general term and using that for a specific implementation.  
We're not dealing with some abstract or archtypical object publishing 
environment, we're dealing with a specific one.  Whether or not "z" is a good 
name for it is another question altogether.  ;-)

 > Did I miss something? Did I just manage to embarrass myself? Is this a
 > dream where I find I am wearing nothing but underwear in public and then
 > wake up?

That's better than dreaming you're wearing a suit in a dream, and waking up 
wearing nothing but your underwear in public.  ;-)


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