[Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review

Martin Aspeli optilude at gmx.net
Fri Feb 1 13:24:16 UTC 2008

Hi Tom,

On 01/02/2008, Tom Lazar <lists at tomster.org> wrote:
> i'd like to make a case for 'building the plone brand' not only for
> the integrator/user audience (as we already are doing) but also for
> the develeoper audience. let's not be too shy or modest here. borg is
> as 'plonish' in regard to its cleanliness, documentation,
> extensibility etc. as it gets (naturally, with martin being the
> author). i think it could make sense to convey this by using the plone
> namespace for it and i'm sure there are other packages, too.

Renaming things means moving module paths. That breaks persistent
objects and third party imports. It effectively penalises those who
used this package (and and thus helped make it stable enough for the
core) already and forks the original code base in case people already
depend on it and thus need to continue to develop it.

We are doing plenty of designed-for-the-core packages in the plone.*
namespace, and honestly I don't think we need to be so vain that we
can't use packages not in our namespace. I think it's a very nice,
positive statement that we don't, in fact.


More information about the Framework-Team mailing list