From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2004-07-13T06:28:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Module Naming Convention vs Java Namespaces

On Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 1:28:40 AM, David 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.

The standard library should be considered a special case, IMO.  I'm
not advocating a particular naming format here, just making that
point.

Gavin