From: Eivind Eklund <eeklund@...>
Date: 2006-01-06T20:31:16+09:00
Subject: Re: What's the best practise in naming modules?

On 1/6/06, Henrik Martensson <henrik.martensson@bostream.nu> wrote:
> I am working on a module for unit testing XML documents (and document
> fragments). It would be logical, I think, to name the module
> Test::Unit::XML, and to load it using "require 'test/unit/xml'".
>
> However, this naming scheme could cause problems. For example, if the
> core unit test package is extended with assertions for testing XML.
> Also, even if my xml.rb file is physically separate from the files in
> the core test/unit directory, I don't feel comfortable with the possible
> overlap in names.
>
> I could of course change the names:
>
> XML::Test::Unit
> require 'xml/test/unit'
>
> or I could do something like this:
>
> Test::Unit::XML
> require 'testunitxml'
>
> However, I neither of these alternatives is as appealing.
>
> What is the recommended Ruby practise in these cases?

First of all, I'd coordinate this with Nathaniel (author of
Test::Unit, nathaniel@talbott.ws).

Second, I'd call it something complete different - a unique name,
totally off the Test::Unit namespace, until it has lived for a while
with different people using it.  If it seems like a good idea *then*,
I'd rename it into Test::Unit::XML (again, after coordinating with
Nathaniel).

The delay is to make sure that the design is sound, that you don't
find a better and incompatible way to test shortly after, and have
taken the main namespace.  That namespace should be for something
that's fairly permanent.

Eivind.