Chris Withers wrote:
> Andreas Jung wrote:
>> Namespaces are like dust and smoke. We already have enough (pointless)
>> namespaces. So let's stick with zope.* and z3c.* for Zope related packages.
> Why note merge those two into one then?

Merging namespaces just causes work without any benefit. A namespace
doesn't tell you anything about the code in question anymore. You have
to have a dictator, who watches over the code that is published under
*his* namespace and maintains a vision for what is appropriate for a
particular namespace. We didn't have those dictators and we won't get
them. For me a namespace has essentially no meaning today. It might give
you a hint by whom or which community it was written, but that's about it.

Ensuring code quality, dependency information or any kind of other
metric in the name of a package is just the wrong place. The concept of
giving SVN repositories any kind of quality level aspect failed in the
same way. Dependencies are specified in the and egg metadata.
Quality is judged by who has written some code, number of tests, test
coverage, amount of releases and so on.

> Personally, I've always seen zope.* as being usable on their own or with 
> either Zope 2 or Zope 3. It seems this package is only usefully 
> targetted at zope2, so a zope2.* namespace seems perfect.

The package works fine with both Zope2 and Zope3. I thought the pattern
it advocates might not be appealing to Zope3 users, but Robert has
proven me wrong.


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

Reply via email to