[Webware-discuss] MiscUtils and WebUtils name

[<ir...@ms...>]

On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 12:43:56PM -0800, Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
> >> What clearly identifies MiddleKit and UserKit as being part of
> >> Webware any more than *Utils?

The Webware project is (or will be) known as "the organization that
provides *Kit", just like Egenix is "the company that provides mx.*"
and Zope is "the project that uses Z*".

We have de-facto ownership of *Kit because nobody previously claimed it,
so it would be gauche for anybody else to release a "*Kit" module either 
(1) at all, or (2) not conforming to the Webware *Kit structuring
conventions.  

> No one else is using the names, MiscUtils and WebUtils.
> 
> I anticipate that I could use MiscUtils in future open source projects 
> outside of Webware, in which case I will facilitate the release of 
> standalone versions of these. They are catch-alls because we need catch 
> alls and because it encourages us to refrain from carelessly tying these 
> classes and functions into WebKit such that they can't be used 
> independently.
> 
> They're here to stay.

*utils, however, is one of the first terms many Python projects and
local admins would consider for their miscellaneous modules, just like *lib.  So
it's unfair for us to monopolize it.

Nor should we expect the local sysadmin to immediately connote Webware
when he encounters a module called MiscUtils or WebUtils.

How about WWMiscUtils & WWWebUtils, or ChuckMiscUtils & ChuckWebUtils,
or ceMiscUtils & ceWebUtils (using Chuck's initials)?  Those names are
much less generic, thus making others feel better about giving Chuck
"ownership" of those prefixes.

-- 
-Mike (Iron) Orr, ir...@ms...  (if mail problems: ms...@ji...)
   http://iron.cx/     English * Esperanto * Russkiy * Deutsch * Espan~ol