[Zope3-dev] packaging conventions note

[Guido van Rossum]

We haven't had the public discussion on this at the sprint yet.  In a
little bit, I promise. :-)

> > We're listening on the packaging conventions. I need to discuss this
> > public/api thing with Jim. (few minutes later) hm..he doesn't like the
> > 'from foo import *' suggestion. :)
> 
> Really? Jim, why not? I think it solves some problems and the fect
> that some independent people do this, shows that it is a good
> thought. I like the public.py idea. +1 from my part.

-1 on anything that recommends (or even facilitates) import *.  As the
reader of a module, import * sucks: when I see a name I don't
recognize, I want to be able to search the module for the first
definition.

> > We're preparing a proposal here (that's me, Jim, with some input from
> > Guido and others), mostly following the rules Guido listed (which are
> > similar to the way Twisted does it). For other reasons (enabling web
> > developers) we're separating view code from the hierarchy entirely
> > though.
> 
> I am actually VERY much against that. It will make my programming
> experience much worse. What about symlinks as suggested earlier. The
> build process could setup the symlink hierarchy. But please, do not
> put the views anywhere else!  So, -1.

As I said, we haven't had this discussion yet here, but at the moment
I agree; -1 on separating view code.  But I'll hold judgement until
after we've heard Jim's story.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)