[Framework-Team] Re: Namespace organisation

Rob Miller ra at burningman.com
Sun Apr 30 21:01:31 UTC 2006


On Apr 30, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Rocky Burt wrote:

> Just some quick notes.  I agree on using the toplevel plone.* package
> for all the plone stuff.  In my opinion, we should try following the
> zope.* naming conventions for where we place stuff.  Of course this
> won't capture of all of the plone use cases, but it should capture at
> least a few.
>
> Also, remember that zope3 is moving away from packages named as api or
> zapi or whatever so we should avoid those as well.
>
> Private packages should be named with a leading underscore to indicate
> people writing third-party plone products shouldn't use those  
> packages.
>
> Interfaces should be in a interfaces module or package based in the
> 2nd-level package namespace (ie plone.schema.interfaces,
> plone.portlet.interfaces).  The same with testing package/modules.

+1 to all of that.

> And since Plone 3.0 is going to require at least zope 2.10 and cmf2,
> being able to use Product-less products will work fine, so it will  
> work
> out no problem to use plone.* as the toplevel package (otherwise
> Products.plone.* would have to be the toplevel package).

it's worth noting that it's possible already to use plone.* (or  
anything else, for that matter) as a top-level package.  without Zope  
2.10 (or pythonproducts) you need to have something in the Products  
directory to load the package, but there's no problem having this  
product be just a stub that imports everything from some other  
package living in $INSTANCE_HOME/lib/python.

-r




More information about the Framework-Team mailing list