Fred Drake wrote:
On Friday 16 April 2004 01:31 pm, Michael Bernstein wrote:
From a consistency in nomenclature POV, I find 'z' jars a bit with ZConfig, zdaemon, ZEO, zLog, and ZODB, which one might expect to find nested within 'z' (as 'z.Config' for example). This is admittedly only an issue for the newest newbies still trying to guess at where stuff is located.
I don't know what zLog is; presumably you mean zLOG?
Yep.
zLOG is dead in Zope 2.8, and will remain only for API compatibility.
I don't think there's any real consistency now for what's in the Zope 2 head, so I don't think that's a big deal.
Shouldn't we strive for consistency in nomenclature going forward?
However, rather than suggest a wholesale moving and renaming of these packages within 'z', I'd like to suggest an alternative short name for the 'zope' package, 'OPE', which avoids this issue:
import OPE.interface from OPE.app import zapi from OPE.app.event import publish from OPE.app.event.objectevent import ObjectModifiedEvent
Hehe. ;-)
(I do hope you're joking!)
About even considering a 'wholesale moving and renaming' yes, obviously, but as far as suggesting 'OPE' as an alternative to 'z' (insofar as it is still necessary to avoid a name-clash with 'Zope'), no. 'OPE' (as an acronym for Object Publishing Environment) seems like it fits better conceptually than 'z'. Did I miss something? Did I just manage to embarrass myself? Is this a dream where I find I am wearing nothing but underwear in public and then wake up? -- - Michael R. Bernstein michaelbernstein.com Author of Zope Bible