RE: Package organization - Why no top-level module?

sean.upton wrote:
> CMF and Plone, though, are also distributed this way. My thoughts as to
> why this is good, at least in one way;
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2003-April/018175.html

Unless I'm misunderstanding their roles, generator, transform, validation
are dependencies of the Archetypes system. (e.g.
Archetypes/TransformTool.py:from transform import transforms) Does CMFCore
depend on CMF* in the same way?

generator, transform, validation would be versioned together with
Archetypes, and probably be kept synchronized with new releases. They
aren't intended to be generally usefully with non-CMF products, are they?

Maybe it wouldn't seem so strange if generator, transform and validation
(the packages, not the classes) had more Archetypes-specific names. e.g
ArchGeneration, ArchTransform, ArchValidation and recently ArchGenXML.
Other systems might need those top-level names someday.

This would allow future funcionality to have a straightforward pattern to
follow that would group add-on components of the Archetypes system
together: ArchStorage, ArchRepository, ArchRender, ArchVersion,
ArchWorkflow, etc.

CMF*/Plone* could still be used per usual for products that use archetypes
to provide portal functionality.




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: eBay
Great deals on office technology -- on eBay now! Click here:
http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5