On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Christian Tismer <tis...@stackless.com> wrote: > Third rant, dear Zope-Friends (and I mean it as friends!). > > In an attempt to make the ZODB a small, independant package, ZODB > has been split into many modules.
Maybe not as many as you think: persistent, transaction, ZEO, ZODB and BTrees. 5 <shrug> > > I appreciate that, while I think it partially has the opposite effect: > > - splitting BTrees apart is a good idea per se. > But the way as it is, it adds more Namespace-pollution than benefits: > > To make sense of BTrees, you need the ZODB, and only the ZODB! > So, why should then BTrees be a top-level module at all? > > This does not feel natural, but eavesdropping, pretending as something > that is untrue. > > I think: > > - BTrees should either be a ZODB sub-package in its current state, > > - or a real stand-alone package with some way of adding persistence as > an option. I don't agree that because a package depends on ZODB it should be in ZODB. There are lots of packages that depend on ZODB. I agree with your sentiments about namespace pollution. You and I may be the only ones that care though .3 ;). Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
