From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2004-07-13T01:49:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Module Naming Convention vs Java Namespaces

On Monday 12 July 2004 08:28, David A. Black wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Robert Klemme wrote:
> > "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0407120755490.11648-100000@wobblini...
> >
> > > I would emulate the built-in/standard library style as much as
> > > possible, i.e., no company names and a General::Specific::MoreSpecific
> > > nest.
> > >
> > > If company names absolutely must enter into it, it would be better to
> > > put them at the other end; I'd rather "require
> > > 'xml/parsers/AcmeXMLCo'" than 'AcmeXMLCo/xml/parser'.  The former is
> > > not ideal, but it's less disruptive and less ungainly than the latter.
> >
> > But having the company name as prefix makes installation easier, because
> > otherwise if your package consists of several modules you'll have to
> > manage several sub folders.
>
> Yes, but all for the common good.  I don't see the names of Matz's
> company, or those of other core developers, in the standard library.

That's because Matz gets to choose the library names; who can "bump" his 
library names?  I wanted to give my libraries perfectly ordinary names, such 
as with my interface library, but when I used the name "interface" people 
went ballistic because someone else had already used the name.  I would 
gladly get rid of the "celsoft.com" part of library names, but since names 
are often decided based on who grabs it first, I have little choice.  Well, I 
could name my libraries with brand-name style names, like 3DInterfacePro or 
InterfaceMagic, or YAIL (Yet Another Interface Library) instead of just 
Interface, but I don't particularly care for those sorts of names.  Better to 
use the most appropriate, simplest name, and just partition it under a domain 
name.

	Sean O'Dell