Hey, On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Stephan Richter <srichter@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu> wrote: [snip]
Jim must have read your message with a big smile on his face. He was arguing for this approach of flat package names about 2-3 years ago and I shot that proposal down. I hate when I only realize design mistakes years after Jim does. ;-\
I only get the idea a few years after Jim gets them. I don't know what's better. :)
For several packages we took the following approach. Most packages that have browser packages are in zope.app; for example, zope.app.folder (we did not convert this package yet). We then took the API and moved it to zope.folder. We imported the API in zope.app.folder again to maintain BBB. This way zope.folder has the minimal deps and zope.app.folder contains the browser code.
I guess that's indeed a reasonable way to move forward. The idea would be that we can move forward on the zope.* package and probably retire some of the zope.app.* packages eventually.
BTW, zope.app.form is a big exception.
Agreed. Just wanted to mention the exception too. There are some other publisher related packages that also have significant not-really-UI stuff in .browser. Regards, Martijn