[Zope3-dev] Zope 3 Packages vs Python Packages

[Shane Hathaway]

Steve Alexander wrote:
> Python packages on the filesystem can hold configurations, components 
> and other filesystem packages. For example, the zope.app.browser package 
> in src/zope/app/browser contains configurations, components and other 
> packages.
> 
> So far, I see that "these new things" are used pretty much like the 
> filesystem packages we already have with Zope 3.

I just looked again at Jim's proposal at 
http://dev.zope.org/Zope3/ThroughTheWebSiteDevelopment .  He uses the 
term "software distribution package".  Chris is proposing to rename this 
"software distribution bundle".

The name of a software distribution package is not likely a Pythonic 
name.  Quoting Jim:

"""
Some example package names are:
         contact-1.0.0.a1
         contact-1.0.0.b1
         contact-1.0.0.b2
         contact-1.0.0
         contact-1.2.1
         contact-1.12.1
         zc.versions-1.1.0
"""

Python packages need to have Pythonic names.  You wouldn't want to 
"import contact_1_0_0_a1".  In this and other ways, software 
distribution ______s have more in common with .tar.gz files than with 
Python packages, in that they are not themselves Python packages, but 
may contain Python packages.

I think my argument sounds weak, though.  Debate some more and maybe 
you, I, or someone else will come up with better reasoning. :-)

>> "Bundle" seems like a reasonable alternative to package in this case.
> 
> Should we call the filesystem python packages "bundles" when we put a 
> configure.zcml inside them?

No.

Shane