Hey, On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Jim must have read your message with a big smile on his face. He was arguing > for this approach of flat package names about 2-3 years ago and I shot that > proposal down. I hate when I only realize design mistakes years after Jim > does. ;-\
I only get the idea a few years after Jim gets them. I don't know what's better. :) > For several packages we took the following approach. Most packages that have > browser packages are in zope.app; for example, zope.app.folder (we did not > convert this package yet). We then took the API and moved it to zope.folder. > We imported the API in zope.app.folder again to maintain BBB. This way > zope.folder has the minimal deps and zope.app.folder contains the browser > code. I guess that's indeed a reasonable way to move forward. The idea would be that we can move forward on the zope.* package and probably retire some of the zope.app.* packages eventually. > BTW, zope.app.form is a big exception. Agreed. Just wanted to mention the exception too. There are some other publisher related packages that also have significant not-really-UI stuff in .browser. Regards, Martijn _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org 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 )
