[Framework-Team] Re: Organisation of Plone components in Collective and Plone svn

[Rob Miller]

On May 2, 2006, at 5:27 AM, Daniel Nouri wrote:
> Rocky Burt wrote:
>> On Mon, 2006-01-05 at 19:20 -0700, Rob Miller wrote:
>>> On May 1, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Rocky Burt wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2006-02-05 at 01:08 +0200, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To summarize some of the discussion we had on IRC just now, here
>>>>> is our
>>>>> current idea, for all those people not spending their life in  
>>>>> online
>>>>> channels ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> As an example we used the structure for the contextualhelp  
>>>>> product,
>>>>> which was developed at the sprint:
>>>>>
>>>>> This should go into the "http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/"  
>>>>> repository
>>>>> under the name "plone.contextualhelp":
>>>>>
>>>>> http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.contextualhelp/trunk
>>>>> http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.contextualhelp/trunk/src
>>>>> http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.contextualhelp/trunk/src/ 
>>>>> plone
>>>>> http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.contextualhelp/trunk/src/
>>>>> plone/contextualhelp
>>>>>
>>>>> http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.contextualhelp/branches
>>>>> http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.contextualhelp/tags
>>>>>
>>>>> The trunk folder itself should contain release scripts, like  
>>>>> setup.py
>>>>> and the real source should be in a /src subfolder. It has a plone
>>>>> subfolder, so it is obvious that to import anything from this  
>>>>> package
>>>>> you have to use "from plone.contextualhelp import *".
>>>>>
>>>>> If we can agree on this, we should probably post this to the devel
>>>>> list
>>>>> with some more explanation (which can grow into a chapter in  
>>>>> the dev
>>>>> manual ;)
>>>>
>>>> +1 to all of this.  Except of course for the line "from
>>>> plone.contextualhelp import *".  If I see code importing * I will
>>>> promptly scream :)
>>>
>>> i'm okay with most of this, except for the extra 'plone' level in  
>>> the
>>> src tree.  it's implied in the plone.contextualhelp directory name,
>>> IMO, no need for an empty, duplicate folder level.
>>
>> I'm not sure of all the practical reasoning for requiring the 'plone'
>> level in the src tree but all the regular python packaging I've seen
>> that uses a toplevel package does provide that dir in their src
>> directory so part of this would merely be for consistency's sake.
>>
>> Look at more of the zope.* whatever pkgs in svn.zope.org and see for
>> yourself.
>
> Right, `plone` would be our namespace[1] package.  This makes very  
> much
> sense in the context of setuptools/distutils.  (It's nice to know  
> *why*
> zope3 people do the things they do ;)
>
> However, having src/ is really a matter of taste.

ah, okay, well in that case i'd argue for 'plone' instead of 'src'.   
i could live with it as it's described above, so if there are good  
reasons to use the entire structure then fine, but if we can  
eliminate unnecessary directories then i'd rather do so.

-r