[Zope3-dev] Re: Separate presentation packages

[Jim Fulton]

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> 

...

I said a disadvantage was:

>> - More navigation, but the navigation is simple under the new
>>   shallow organization.  For example, if I'm in foo and I want
>>   to get to the directory with the browser code, I only have to
>>   cd to ../foo_browser, which isn't so bad.
> 

and you agreed:

> We need to reduce navigation, for the reason I've stated above: not to 
> confuse and scare away people that are not familiar with that scheme.

...

>> So, I feel rather strongly that we should have packages like:
>>
>> folder
>> folder_browser
>> file
>> file_browser
> 
> 
> I don't have a constructive competitive idea, but I firmly dislike the 
> underscore. Could be that this is a matter of taste. I wish I had an 
> idea of my own. All I can do right now is think aloud:
> 
> <thinking-out-loud-mode>
> 
> What if we had
> 
> - zope.app   -- containing flat packages with application code
> - zope.browser   -- containing just as flat packages with browser code
> - zope.webdav   -- ........ with WebDAV presentation
> 
> Hmm... What about a different top-level package?
> 
> - zope.app  -- containing flat packages with application code
> - zopepresent.browser  -- contains flat browser packages
> - zopepresent.webdav  -- contains flat WebDAV packages
> 
> Or a different top-level package for each presentation type?
> 
> - zope.app  -- containing flat packages with application code
> - zopebrowser  -- contains flat browser packages
> - zopedav  -- contains flat WebDAV packages
> 
> </thinking-out-loud-mode>


But this moves things far apart.  Now the packages relared to foo
are in different trees.  I think foo-related-ness is at least as important
as browser relatedness.  I *hate* looking in different trees for browser
and application code related to a topic.


>> and so on. Note, again, that this separation is a good bit different
>> than what we have now. The presentation code is *close* to the 
>> application
>> code while still being separate.
> 
> 
> But it'll look as if it were on the same hierarchical 'layer',

Right. That's a good thing. I can see foo and foo_browser together
in one place.

 > while
> conceptually it's not. I still think of it as a trabant, a satellite of 
> the actual application code-containing package. An exchangeable 
> satellite, if you want :).

Yes. I expect to find satallites close to their primary bodies, not off
in a separate solar system.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim at zope.com       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org