Hi, On 9 July 2010 21:21, Johannes Raggam <[email protected]> wrote: > dear plone community, > > i'm going to create some packages which integrate some external flash > based software into plone. the idea is to provide these external > libraries without much extra functionality - much like the > collective.js.* packages do. i want to provide browser-resources, > register javasript and css and provide some functionality to make it > easier to integrate those libs in own packages. > > i want to create these packages in the namespace collective.lib.*
-1 For two reasons: - Three-level-nested namespaces are usually overkill. - collective.lib.* is completely non-describe. So much stuff can be described as a "library" owned by the (Plone community) "collective". This means the .lib bit is useless. What's going to happen (trust me) is that people will start putting all kinds of stuff in there, and then we'll just have a thousand packages with collective.lib in front of them. > * to start over, i gonna rename the package collective.wpaudioplayer to > collective.js.wpaudioplayer which i put in SVN yesterday (since it's so > young, renaming this package should be OK). -1 to collective.js.* too, by the way. :) > * next, i'll create a new flowplayer package (collective.lib.flowplayer) > which does less tricks than collective.flowplayer (like it won't > automatically switch display views - which is cool for a plugin but less > cool for a developer's library). -100 Why not just improve collective.flowplayer? And seriously, *please* don't create a package called collective.lib.flowplayer that's not related to collective.flowplayer. How on *earth* are we going to describe that one to the poor integrator who doesn't read every post on our mailing lists and can interpret the complex history and interplay between two packages that do the same thing. It's a terrible, terrible choice of name. :) My suggestions: - Please try to improve existing products instead of making a new one. Lots of people use and care about collective.flowplayer. I'm sure they'd like to work with you, not have to make choices and "bet" on one of two overlapping packages. - There's almost never a good reason to create a new second level namespace. Just don't do it. The first level namespace indicates ownership (Plone collective vs. Plone core vs. your company or whatever). After that explain your product in a single word. For example, we have plone.principalsource not plone.source.principal. The dots are not there to make it look more like a sentence with multiple words. They have a semantic purpose. :) Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/product-developers
