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

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:31:08 -0500, alan runyan wrote:
> let the tags fly!
> lets get the re-org done sooner than later. its painful but this is a
> step on the way to 1.0

>> The idea is that while archetypes might depend on things like transform
>> and validation those modules are Pythonic, having little to no binding
>> that would require even Zope. My goal was simply to collect useful
>> functionality under reasonable APIs. Hopefully that explains the
>> choices.
>>
>> As for the archetypes package itself I have a tree that has been
>> completely reorganized, breaking modules into logical subdirs and so
>> on. The issue is one of migration due to some of the import changes.
>> While not wanting to feel trapped by the current layout it would be a
>> PITA for many people.
>>
>> -Ben

Is this reorg planned for Archetypes 1.0? With regards to the external
parts of Archetypes (generator, transform, validation), might the
following be a packaging possibility:
Products
- Archetypes
- Archlib (or archlib, if in site-packages with no Zope functionality)
  - generator
  - transform
  - validation
- ArchGenXML
(etc.)
unless they're going to be very general-purpose standalone python modules
with ongoing development independent of Archetypes, the names might be a
little too general not to have a package name. Thanks, just $.02.



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01