Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Shane Hathaway wrote:
>> - A library of ZCML directives for configuring 
>> views.  Also provides generic view classes.  A better name for this 
>> package might be "zope.basicviews".  A lot of packages depend on this.
> I'm not sure 'basic' needs to be in there. Do we have anything less basic?
> What about simply calling it zope.view? (I don't like the plural in 
> package names either generally)

Sounds good to me.

>> - Provides IPublication implementations and a 
>> mechanism/registry for choosing a different publication class for each 
>> request.  Most packages should not depend on this.  A better name might 
>> be "zope.publicationregistry".
> I'm fine with this. I was considering 'zope.publication', but we already 
> have 'zope.publisher' so that'd get very confusing again, something we 
> should avoid.


>> - Provides generic views that translate HTTP verbs like 
>> PUT, DELETE, and OPTIONS into map operations.  The idea is clever, but 
>> not everyone needs a REST-style API.  A better name might be 
>> "zope.httpverbs".
> Even though I don't really like the plural, I think 'zope.http' would 
> promise a bit too much, so 'zope.httpverbs' sound better.

Another option is "", because a simple REST interface is what 
the package tries to accomplish.

> So if we get some consensus about this, we need volunteers that can help 
> move the code over to these new packages and leave backwards compatible 
> imports in the old places. Is there anything in these packages we can 
> safely leave behind do you think? (ZMI related, perhaps?)

I haven't come across anything we'd want to leave behind.

Summarizing: -> zope.view -> zope.publicationregistry ->

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

Reply via email to