[Python-Dev] module reorg (was: 1.6 job list)

David Ascher DavidA@ActiveState.com
Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:50:14 -0800

> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, David Ascher wrote:
> > This made me think of one issue which is worth considering -- is there a
> > mechanism for third-party packages to hook into the standard naming
> > hierarchy?  It'd be weird not to have the oracle and sybase
> modules within
> > the db toplevel package, for example.
> My position is that any 3rd party module decides for itself where it wants
> to live -- once we formalized the framework. Consider PyGTK/PyGnome,
> PyQT/PyKDE -- they should live in the UI package too...

That sounds good in theory, but I can see possible problems down the line:

1) The current mapping between package names and directory structure means
that installing a third party package hierarchy in a different place on disk
than the standard library requires some work on the import mechanisms (this
may have been discussed already) and a significant amount of user education.

2) We either need a 'registration' mechanism whereby people can claim a name
in the standard hierarchy or expect conflicts.  As far as I can gather, in
the Perl world registration occurs by submission to CPAN.  Correct?

One alternative is to go the Java route, which would then mean, I think,
that some core modules are placed very high in the hierarchy (the equivalent
of the java. subtree), and some others are deprecated to lower subtree (the
equivalent of com.sun).

Anyway, I agree with Guido on this one -- naming is a contentious issue
wrought with long-term implications.  Let's not rush into a decision just