[Web-SIG] Can't we all just get along? (was: Re: wsgiconfig design)

[René Dudfield]

I guess I'm just not used to it.

Adding the stuff to the cheeseshop has definitely made it more obvious
that you can use the bits separately.  I don't think it'll be that
much longer before people realise the parts are decoupled now.

Part of it could be that the names are just longer.  I can easily
remember things with less levels - and there's slightly less typing.

There's also the history of zope stuff being for zope.  I mean zope
has been around for *ages* and my brain doesn't adapt as quickly as it
used to.

I guess the cheeseshop could be the top namespace.  The zope. part
isn't technically needed if the cheeseshop keeps things unique.
Modules could still be under the zope umbrella without the zope. at
the front.  Although the zope part is in itself useful.  Just to see
which parts come from zope, and to organise things.  If a name is
already taken globally it doesn't matter because it is in the zope
namespace.

btw, twisted is in the same boat as paste and zope.  There's lots of
useful stuff in there that I overlook, possibly because in the past
twisted was one big thing, and maybe because the naming isn't entirely
about the functionality.


On 7/9/07, Christian Theune <ct at gocept.com> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 09.07.2007, 00:11 +1000 schrieb René Dudfield:
> > I think the reason is that zope, and paste are not named for what they do.
> >
> > I mean, without knowing what's in them, zope and paste are kind of
> > abstract things for people.
> >
> > I mean if something was called zope.configurator vs configurator -
> > people might think the zope one is zope specific.  That it's for zope,
> > or used with zope.
> >
> > Putting all the zope bits separately in the cheeseshop makes it more
> > obvious that they can be used separately.  But I still keep thinking
> > they are zope specific things - even though I know they can be used
> > separately.
> >
> > Same for paste.
> >
> > That is my thinking anyway - maybe other people think that way too.
>
> That argument would make any kind of namespacing for packages futile.
> Would any of the gocept packages imply they are specific to gocept?
> Is the `sun` namespace in Java packages only for code that is used
> internally with sun?
>
> Why would we put it on the cheeseshop if it wasn't relevant to others as
> well?
>
> Maybe namespace packages did not fully arrive yet.
>
> Christian
>
>