From: Mark Hahn <mchahn@...>
Date: 2001-12-05T10:53:29+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27506] Re: Package Naming


What part of it do you find tedious, it's length?

Having all the objects fall into a hierarchy by company or organization
makes a lot of sense to me.  Then each of those organizations can use
whatever sub-hierarchy that makes the most sense for their package.

There has to be some central authority to resolve name clashes.  Why create
a new one when we all use the dot-com domain name authority every day.

I also liked the fact that you were guaranteed to find the directory for the
package.  No more hunting around in 17 different places like usr/local/etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Russell [mailto:ser@germane-software.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 5:04 PM
To: ruby-talk ML; undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: [ruby-talk:27501] RE: Package Naming


Mark Hahn wrote:

> I like java's dot-com convention.  It absolutely guarantees no name
> clashes.

I've been coding Java, professionally, for the past six years, and I have
to say that the packaging mechanism annoys me to no end.  On the other
hand, I don't have a better mechanism, but I've come to find Java's tactic
to be rather tedious.

--
--- SER