On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Baiju M <mba...@zeomega.com> wrote:
>> I was going through Zope 2 source code today. There are 20+ top-level
>> packages specific to Zope 2. Would it be useful if we move those packages
>> to a top-level namespace package. I mean something similar to:
>> "zope.app.*", "grokcore.*", "repoze.bfg.*" ?
> What would be the advantage of that? It'd break every single existing
> import. Most of those packages aren't reusable in the wild and
> shouldn't be released outside of the Zope2 distribution.
> The packages that we might want to break out (like we did with
> Acquistion, ExtensionClass, DateTime) should retain their name, so
> nobody has to change any code to work with them.
I think we could have added those packages in a namespace. What if we want
to extract similar things out of Zope 2 core. For example DTML related
things could be extracted out of Zope 2 core.
I guess we are planning to improve the WSGI story of Zope 2,
in addition to creating new packages, we will be required to re-factor
existing code for this. I hope these kind of "refactoring" would be much
easier with namespace packages. One of the major contributing factor why
we were able to create a nice ZTK out of Zope 3 is the use of "namespace".
There are few more important factors:
- We should not clutter top-level names with Zope 2 specific packages
This is very important in the context of new distribution mechanism
we adopted (egg, PyPI). Courtesy to other PyPI users ?
- Branding Zope technologies is also very important. Yes, Zope
is still a good brand :)
- Some of the things mentioned in this blog by Martin Aspelli:
PEP 20: "Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!"
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -