|
RE: RE: Package organization - Why no top-leve l module?: msg#00066web.zope.plone.archetypes.devel
At second glance, what I was referring to was a "packaging" issue, and what you are referring to is a package organization issue (distinct as the former is a deployment issue, and the latter a development issue). After giving this more thought, what you are saying makes more sense. Sean > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Kowalczyk [mailto:jtk-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 11:09 AM > To: archetypes-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [Archetypes-devel] 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 > _______________________________________________ > Archetypes-devel mailing list > Archetypes-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/archetypes-devel > ------------------------------------------------------- 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 |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | RE: Package organization - Why no top-level module?: 00066, Jeff Kowalczyk |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Archetypes in CVS broken?: 00066, Seb Potter |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Package organization - Why no top-level mo dule?i: 00066, sean . upton-lttx/tDbukJF6kxbq+BtvQ |
| Next by Thread: | Archetypes in CVS broken?: 00066, Seb Potter |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |