[Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:01:42 -0800, Alec Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a buildout for the local roles PLIP (208) ready: https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/review/plip208-localroles Just a general question here, while I remember it: When things like this happen, shouldn't packages be renamed to plone.localrole instead of borg.localrole? The reason I'm asking is that it seems to me that it'll be very confusing once we have 20 different prefixes for things that are considered Plone Core. :) There is some precedent already for this, IIRC — we renamed the Iterate packages from Kapil that were included in 3.0 (I believe they had a or.* namespace). -- Alexander Limi · http://limi.net ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review
On Feb 1, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Alexander Limi wrote: Just a general question here, while I remember it: When things like this happen, shouldn't packages be renamed to plone.localrole instead of borg.localrole? hmm, i'm not sure. it would surely lessen confusion, but otoh a lot of packages (and buildouts for that matter) depend on that package, so changing the name would cause quite a bit of migration headaches. of course it'd be possible to leave the old version around for a while, but what about updates and fixes? and maintaining another branch just because of this seems a bit too much, imho. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review
updates and fixes would only go into the new package. of course, we'd leave the old packages around. and, of course, maintaining two branches just for naming reasons is out of the question. we can add a note in README.txt or somesuch and make an announcement at the product's PSC presence. that should do the trick IMHO. i'm all for bringing stuff like this into the plone namespace. just my $0.02, tom On 01.02.2008, at 12:12, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 1, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Alexander Limi wrote: Just a general question here, while I remember it: When things like this happen, shouldn't packages be renamed to plone.localrole instead of borg.localrole? hmm, i'm not sure. it would surely lessen confusion, but otoh a lot of packages (and buildouts for that matter) depend on that package, so changing the name would cause quite a bit of migration headaches. of course it'd be possible to leave the old version around for a while, but what about updates and fixes? and maintaining another branch just because of this seems a bit too much, imho. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review
Hi Tom, On 01/02/2008, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'd like to make a case for 'building the plone brand' not only for the integrator/user audience (as we already are doing) but also for the develeoper audience. let's not be too shy or modest here. borg is as 'plonish' in regard to its cleanliness, documentation, extensibility etc. as it gets (naturally, with martin being the author). i think it could make sense to convey this by using the plone namespace for it and i'm sure there are other packages, too. Renaming things means moving module paths. That breaks persistent objects and third party imports. It effectively penalises those who used this package (and and thus helped make it stable enough for the core) already and forks the original code base in case people already depend on it and thus need to continue to develop it. We are doing plenty of designed-for-the-core packages in the plone.* namespace, and honestly I don't think we need to be so vain that we can't use packages not in our namespace. I think it's a very nice, positive statement that we don't, in fact. Martin ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review
i'd like to make a case for 'building the plone brand' not only for the integrator/user audience (as we already are doing) but also for the develeoper audience. let's not be too shy or modest here. borg is as 'plonish' in regard to its cleanliness, documentation, extensibility etc. as it gets (naturally, with martin being the author). i think it could make sense to convey this by using the plone namespace for it and i'm sure there are other packages, too. coming up with eccentric namespaces in the beginning of a new product's lifecycle is a good idea (we'd have to have three plone.commenting products right now, otherwise, none of which is finished...) but eventually i'd think it's a good idea to 'bless' a package and bring it into the plone namespace. otherwise we'll just 'dilute our brand' for the developer audience. of course, i'm still all for integrating 3rd party tools (and keeping their name, of course!) but to 'simulate diversity' by letting our own packages keep their initial, non-plone name when integrating them into plone core doesn't strike me as particularly desirable (or straightforward, for that matter), either. just my $0,02 and i'd love to know what you guys think about it... cheers, tom On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Andreas Zeidler wrote: On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: -1 to renaming everthing plone.*. When things begin outside Plone (which we should encourage), then we can't necessarily insist that they are called plone.* (in fact, we'd probably discourage it if it wasn't intended to be eventually destined for the core). i completely agree. furthermore, i think using non plone.* packages in plone emphasizes one of the points made in the whole wsgi/repoze approach and the plone. (as opposed to plone.app.) namespace, which is that re-usability is a good thing and we'd like other people outside the plone/zope universe to start looking and potentially using our stuff as well. in that sense i think we should actually make a statement by integrating packages from the outside world. and yes, that's not particularly true in this case, but at least it looks this way... ;) andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review
On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: -1 to renaming everthing plone.*. When things begin outside Plone (which we should encourage), then we can't necessarily insist that they are called plone.* (in fact, we'd probably discourage it if it wasn't intended to be eventually destined for the core). i completely agree. furthermore, i think using non plone.* packages in plone emphasizes one of the points made in the whole wsgi/repoze approach and the plone. (as opposed to plone.app.) namespace, which is that re-usability is a good thing and we'd like other people outside the plone/zope universe to start looking and potentially using our stuff as well. in that sense i think we should actually make a statement by integrating packages from the outside world. and yes, that's not particularly true in this case, but at least it looks this way... ;) andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review
On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Tom Lazar wrote: updates and fixes would only go into the new package. of course, we'd leave the old packages around. right, but actually that's what i meant — it would leave many people stuck with the old, non-maintained version... we can add a note in README.txt or somesuch and make an announcement at the product's PSC presence. that should do the trick IMHO. too much trouble for what it's worth, imho. i'm all for bringing stuff like this into the plone namespace. having thought about it a little more i'm gonna change my not sure to -1. also see my _next_ mail... ;) andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review
i think the penalty aspect martin mentions (apart from the effort involved in renaming, which could be spent easily elsewhere) pretty much does it for me. i rest my case. cheers, tom (who may be vain, but not passionately so ;-) On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote: Hi Tom, On 01/02/2008, Tom Lazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'd like to make a case for 'building the plone brand' not only for the integrator/user audience (as we already are doing) but also for the develeoper audience. let's not be too shy or modest here. borg is as 'plonish' in regard to its cleanliness, documentation, extensibility etc. as it gets (naturally, with martin being the author). i think it could make sense to convey this by using the plone namespace for it and i'm sure there are other packages, too. Renaming things means moving module paths. That breaks persistent objects and third party imports. It effectively penalises those who used this package (and and thus helped make it stable enough for the core) already and forks the original code base in case people already depend on it and thus need to continue to develop it. We are doing plenty of designed-for-the-core packages in the plone.* namespace, and honestly I don't think we need to be so vain that we can't use packages not in our namespace. I think it's a very nice, positive statement that we don't, in fact. Martin ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: PLIPs 208 and 217 Ready for Review
On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Tom Lazar wrote: [...] but to 'simulate diversity' by letting our own packages keep their initial, non-plone name when integrating them into plone core doesn't strike me as particularly desirable (or straightforward, for that matter), either. my point was more a generic one. so `borg.localrole` is admittedly a bad example in that respect, but yet, renaming it would be a bad idea imho, simply because it's too widely used already. andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.0.5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
