[Develop] Miro packages

[Ben Dean-Kawamura]

Oh yeah, definitely not for 1.1, I would be working in trunk.

On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:30:37PM -0500, will wrote:
> I definitely think it's a good thing to do at some point.
> 
> It's suggested good practice to do absolute importing rather than 
> relative importing because it reduces the possibility of module name 
> conflicts.  For example, we bumped into a problem where if the user had 
> the BitTorrent package installed, then when running Miro they picked up 
> the original BitTorrent package and not the Miro-ized one...  ick. 
> That's not a problem anymore because we switched to libtorrent.
> 
> I looked into doing this a few months ago when fiddling with static 
> analysis stuff--I think I complained to Chris about it.
> 
> I'm +1 on doing this, but not for 1.1.
> 
> 
> Ben Dean-Kawamura wrote:
> > Today I got into a sort of awkward situation when I tried to create a platform
> > package for my frontend-backend work.  I quickly found out that there is a
> > module in the standard library called platform that conflicted with my name
> > choice.  I tried to think of a better name, but the best I could come up with
> > is "miroplatform", which I'm not really a fan of at all.
> > 
> > This got me to thinking, we should put all our modules inside a miro package
> > to avoid this sort of thing.  I think we've had name conflicts in the past,
> > and it's a pretty annoying problem.
> > 
> > Do folks think it's worth the work to change this?  I'm sort of think it's a
> > good idea, but I don't have that strong of an opinion.  I think it'll take a
> > day or so, but I haven't thought too much about potential snags.
> > 
> > Ben
> _______________________________________________
> Develop mailing list
> Develop at pculture.org
> http://participatoryculture.org/mailman/listinfo/develop