[Zope3-dev] Last chance to mess with the source layout of Zope 3

[Martijn Faassen]

Hi there,

Ah, this must be what you mean with 'namegeddon' in the another post right?
Though this is more like a 'move-geddon', not so much a renaming geddon,
which was a large component of the previous namegeddon.

Jim Fulton wrote:
> Given that, I'd like to put the layout strategy on the table.
> 
> The last time we did a major reorganization, we separated the presentation
> and interface code from the application code.  This was it make it
> easier for user-interface developers to contribute.  I know of one person
> whih actually liked the separation of presentation and interfaces from
> application code. AFAICT, it's been wildly unpopular for everyone else.
> I'm not sure that the people it was done for have even been all that 
> involved.

Right, doesn't seem to have been working out, unfortunately. In part I
suspect the right people didn't get involved, and in part because Zope 3's
hierarchy is too deep so it's really hard on developers.

> A few people have been working on UI, but I don't think they consider 
> themselves UI folk and I bet they don't like the separation.
> 
> In a separate note, I suggested a much flatter layout.

Flatter layout +1. This in itself should eliminate much of the issue
with deeply nested separate interface trees and browser trees. 

> I suggested
> getting rid of zope.app.browser (and the like) and zope.app.interafces.
> I suggested that zope.app have top-level packages in it that are pretty
> self-contained with their own interfaces.py and browser.py (and etc.).

+1

Note that these packages can still grow an interfaces sub-package or
browser sub-package when they become larger. If they're self-contained
they're in effect 'extensions' to the Zope 3 core, and what you're proposing
is very similar to what you'd be doing with a Zope 3 extension already
*under the current naming scheme*. :)

I still am uneasy that this exercise will scatter .pt files across
the system so that layout developers can't find a grip on them, but
since the aim of Zope 3 1.0 has shifted to developers and since the
difference is not unsurmountable with regular naming (look for .pt files,
look for browser.py), this uneasiness isn't well founded. :)

> A variation on this would be to provide separate UI packages
> (e.g, zope.app.folder and zope.app.folderweb).

-1 to folderweb like everybody else.

Regards,

Martijn