[ZODB-Dev] Re: What do you tink of a package named "z"? (was Re: Re: Python module namespace pollution)

[Jeremy Hylton]

On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 09:53, Casey Duncan wrote:
> I'm beginning to dislike the z, mostly because it doesn't covey enough
> meaning. 'zope' is clear and meaningful (and googleable). "What the hell
> is zope?" is a lot easier to answer then "What the hell is z?".

The name makes me thing of the children's book "Z goes home," but I
suspect that this isn't a universal association.
http://www.bookfinder.us/review8/0786819871.html

As a package name, z seems to short to be very meaningful.  zope seems
like a much clearer name for a top-level package.

> Here is my proposed solution:

I like you're proposed solution better than putting everything in "z."

> - Leave Zope 3 as zope. Possibly make transactions, persistent and
> btrees under the zope
>   package. Maybe btrees and persistent can go under zodb, I don't care
> too much.

I think BTrees were under ZODB in ZODB 4.  I think it would be fine to
put persistent and transaction under either ZODB and Zope.

> - Rename the Zope 2 package (currently Zope) to Zope2 (or zope2). It
> will be Zope 2 forever.

There used to be a CVS module named Zope2 :-).

As for the earlier question of "z.zodb" or "zope.zodb" or something
else: The last time everything got renamed, we decided to keep "zodb"
separate because it had an independent identity.  I think that argument
still applies.  Having two top-level packages "zope" and "zodb" uses
just a small corner of the namespace.

The previous renaming of everything result in the ZODB 4 arrangement:
    zodb.zeo
    zodb.btrees
    zodb.storage
The persistence and transaction packages were still at the top-level.  I
think we hoped they would serve as standard packages -- not included in
the standard library, but nonetheless used by several packages.  Since
that's not going to happen now, they could be put somewhere else --
inside of zodb or zope sounds fine.

Jeremy