[Web-SIG] Can't we all just get along? (was: Re: wsgiconfig design)
jim at zope.com
Sun Jul 8 14:31:16 CEST 2007
On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 7/8/07, Jim Fulton <jim at zope.com> wrote:
> I don't understand why your talks are assumed to be uninteresting to
> non-Zope-users (how much evidence do you have?
A fair bit. I've had people tell me, "Oh, I'm not going to that, it's
a Zope talk." Also, based on who's in the audience. This isn't
always the case, but it is too often IMO.
> ), but I have a feeling
> that the "branding" of generally useful functionality with a
> particular framework's name is just bad politics. I agree that it's
> unhealthy for that functionality to be ignored, but the solution is
> not to complain about people's behavior (that's rarely going to change
> the behavior being deplored) but to become sensitive to the problem
> that the brand *apparently* causes and switch to a different brand.
Your point is well taken wrt the zope name. I find this phenomena
applies to "zc" as well. I use the zc namespace so that my package
names can be descriptive without creating annoying name conflicts. Is
"zc" a brand? It seems reasonable that namespace package names
should reflect organization names. If that makes them too brand-
laden, then how should people pick namespace names? Should we pick
random letters? Should I use namespaces like "python", "web", or
maybe "nice"? ;)
Aside from the more general issue, in the context of web software, I
hope we can reuse each others components without having to rename
everything. What a waste of time that would be. Does this have to
be so political?
Jim Fulton mailto:jim at zope.com Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
More information about the Web-SIG