On Wednesday 25 April 2007 23:09:26 Roger Ineichen wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: WebDAV Future
> > > zwebdavext.zopelocking, zwebdavext.zopefile - extensions
> > This I like, but renaming zwebdavext -> zwebdavapp :-) This
> > allows a clearer seperatation between the protocol components
> > and the application components, which is what want now that I
> > think about it.
> > For example zwebdavext.zopefile isn't really an extension but
> > more integration code for zwebdav and any application which
> > uses zope.file. Then in the future I can hopefully get to
> > work on zwebdav.dasl, zwebdav.acl etc. which are extensions
> > to the protocol and hence should belong in zwebdav with more
> > coresponding integration modules in zwebdavapp.
> Why this complex naming? I really like to see a namespace package
> called z3c.webdav and use sub packages like:
> If this doesn't fit for distribution, buildout or eggs,
> or other things I missed, why not:
> But anyway that's up to you, I'm sure you will do it right and
> I like your work anyway ;-)
> Sorry if I missed something, I didn't read all the full thread.
I have playing with a few options over the last past few days including this
option. z3c.webdav doesn't quite work the the fact that I want to support
content / services from the z3c namespace, I would end up with package like
z3c.webdav.z3cextfile, to distinush it say from z3c.webdav.zopefile. This
doesn't quite sit right with me.
But I am not going to split up this namespace as I previously suggested, as I
do take your point that it does get complex.
Thanks for the input,
Zope3-dev mailing list