Stephen ... it's an evolutionary process. I do think it would be good for new packages to use namespaces in a straightforward way (I personally think the style used in acs-templating is overkill).
While I think new packages (real live APM packages) should use namespaces my own thinking isn't as clear in regard to the acs-tcl library.
Originally aD had the tendency to stuff just about every ad_* named proc into one or two files. With later 3.x and 4.x work people started paying more attention to grouping logically-related procs into logically-named files ("text-html-procs.tcl", for instance). But it's still pretty messy.
But we can't really do a massive reorganization of this stuff, we don't have the resources to change all our own packages (or at least ISTM there's more important things to spend those resources on) and of course we can't break everything ever written by our user community.
So I guess my own thinking is that restraining ourselves from renaming stuff in acs-tcl/tcl and other central services is something we should consider.
While still encouraging namespaces for new packages.
Comments?
