Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Fred Drake wrote:
>> On 1/24/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Shane Hathaway wrote:
>>>> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>>>> However, I think one namespace for ZCML is enough.
>> Are you sure?
>> Perhaps it's reasonable to use a single namespace for all the ZCML
>> directives defined as part of the Zope 3 release.
> Agreed. Let's just do that.
>> What about
>> third-party directives? Are you saying we don't need to worry about
>> introducing names that conflict with third-party names we don't know
>> That sounds short-sighted to me. We've certainly defined several
>> directives here at ZC, and I'd hate to have to push them all into Zope
>> 3 itself just to ensure we don't end up with name conflicts in the
> Separate namespaces for separate business entities makes sense to me.
> What doesn't make sense to me is having separate namespaces for every
> subsystem, which is too deep a hierarchy.
> Zope3-dev mailing list
>From my point of view as someone who is developping web applications
with z3 the 'hierarchy' is a pro. Imagine two libraries: one with all
the books in a alphabetical order, one with a thematic order. I would
strongly prefer the latter one with the thematic order, which is more
>From a lerners point of view (for example me) the thematic organization
is a pro too: The z3 beginner will probably need the 'zope' and
'browser' namespaces at first. Browsing apidoc zcml namespaces lets your
knowledge grow fast, because you get structured information.
BTW, I think it's a very flat hierarchy, because it is only three
levels: namespace--element--attribute. That's not deep at all. I would
rather use the term structure than hierarchy.
Zope3-dev mailing list