Tango Group Imports

[Bill Baxter]

bobef wrote:
> Any why not just tango.http.all or tango.all.http instead of fancy stuff?

As for the former: I was assuming they want to have the convenience 
layer in its own package so people who aren't interested can just ignore 
the whole package.  Or perhaps it's more so you can get a quick overview 
of the convenience modules at-a-glance without having to run a 
filesystem search for all files matching *.all.  Or maybe it's that the 
idea is for the names to be as short as possible.  In the http case you 
give, I think that would actually have to be tango.net.http.all, no?

As for the latter: It may be confusing to use "all" as a package like 
that since it's commonly used the other way.   But that seems a weak 
argument.  Actually tango.all.net looks pretty good to me.

--bb