Max Bowsher <_...@maxb.eu> wrote:
>On 23/05/11 07:42, Andrew Bennetts wrote: >> Max Bowsher wrote: >>> A huge amount of the UDD importer's interesting code is in one file, >>> icommon.py. >>> >>> I'd like to submit a series of changes to break it up such that only >the >>> most common bits of code remain there. >> >> This all sounds pretty reasonable to me. >> >> However I don't much care for the “ifoo” module naming convention. I >> assume the “i” stands for “importer” but it always makes me think >> “interface” first. >> >> If we want a namespace for these modules (and I think we do; >namespaces >> are a good idea[1]) then let's do that the standard Python way: with >a >> package. Because I'm uncreative with names I suggest calling it >> “package_importer”, or perhaps “udd”. So rather than “idatabase” I >> propose “package_importer.database”. What do you think? >> >> This would have the advantage of keeping the directory of scripts >that >> are interesting for a person to run mostly separate from the >libraries >> used to implement them. At the moment they're jumbled together. >> >> -Andrew. >> >> [1] Actually, not just good, honking great: python -c 'import this' > >"package_importer" is a bit long. "udd" works for me, especially as the >project lives in lp:udd. The term udd is, unfortunately, overloaded. It's also 'Ultimate Debian Database'. I suggest something that avoids that. Maybe ubuntudd or uddev? Scott K -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
