[Zope3-dev] Voting on Schema design

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "RDM" == R David Murray <bitz@bitdance.com> writes:

    RDM> But what you are really saying is that name space collisions
    RDM> *are* an issue, which is why I'm willing to (reluctently) go
    RDM> along with it.  But pretty much only because I'm hopeful that
    RDM> the Python community is going to grow so large that we have
    RDM> to worry about name space collisions <grin>.

    RDM> I'd almost rather PythonLabs set up some sort of name
    RDM> registry.

As I mentioned in my other reply, I don't think namespace collisions
will be a problem /in practice/ for a very long time, but even if they
are, a central name registry would be easy to implement and manage (it
could certainly be pretty low tech).  More likely it'll be a Namespace
Arbitration Panel ruling on whether Pamela Package or Danny Distutils
is entitled to the FooBar top-level package name.

    RDM> "Zope", by the way, *is* an org prefix, if you look at it
    RDM> sideways.

Yup.

    RDM> Although, to answer Martijn's question as to what goes in
    RDM> lib/python as opposed to lib/python/Zope, I have an "easy"
    RDM> answser to that one.  IMO, the stuff that goes in lib/python
    RDM> is the stuff that someday wants to be part of the Python
    RDM> batteries-included library.  I'd like Schema to be in that
    RDM> category <grin>.

Ah, so putting things in lib/python/Zope is an admission that the
package will never be useful enough to promote to the
batteries-included library? :)

    RDM> Which brings up one of the big disadvantages of the 'Zope'
    RDM> namespace scheme.  It makes it impossible to promote a
    RDM> package into the batteries-included library.  And that would
    RDM> be a shame.

I couldn't agree more!
-Barry