On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Stephan Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -