Code review comment for lp:~openerp-community/openerp/skitzotek_trunk_symlinks

Simone Orsi (simone-orsi) wrote :

> Hi folks,
>
> You'll probably say we don't communicate enough our intents... anyway, better
> late than never ;-)

That's true, but you should communicate "intents" not "things you've already done" :P

> We plan to package our addons the way the Python community is accustomed to.

That's a great news! :)

> There are two options:
>
> - each addons has its own namespace, e.g. openerpsale, openerp_sale. When
> another addons want to depend on `sale`, it can import openerpsale or import
> openerp_sale. This is a clean option.
>
> - a somewhat less clean option because it relies on some extra work (e.g.
> pkgutil) (and is probably quite debatable), is to use a shared namespace.
> We've decided to use that one, partly because it provides a smoother
> transition path (we have to be backward compatible for some time). More
> specificaly, we want to use the openerp.addons namespace. Addons can still be
> packaged separately but will be imported as, say, import openerp.addons.sale.

I'll take the Plone world as an example once again. All the core packages are in the "plone.*" namespace (the plone-only specific packages use double namespaces "plone.app.*", see https://github.com/plone). The ones from the community fall in the "collective.*" namespace (see https://github.com/collective). Of course, no one prohibit to have your own namespace such as "mycompany.*".

So, we can use "openerp.*" for core packages (like "openerp.res") and "openerpcommunity.*" for community addons.

Bests,
Simo

« Back to merge proposal