From: Mark Hahn <mchahn@...>
Date: 2001-12-05T12:15:02+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27513] Re: Package Naming


You must admit that domain names are cheap.  I get mine for $12 each.

By the way, jimm.biz, jimm.to, and jimm.ac are all available.  Go to
alldomains.com.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Menard [mailto:jimm@io.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 7:04 PM
To: ruby-talk ML; undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: [ruby-talk:27511] Re: Package Naming


> From: Sean Russell [mailto:ser@germane-software.com]
>
> 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.

"Mark Hahn" <mchahn@facelink.com> writes:

> 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.

What I find tedious is that I am neither a company nor an organization. I
don't own a domain name or company name. Therefore, I can't really create a
"legit" package name. I haven't had anyone complain about "jimm.foo" but
jimm.{com,net,org,info} are already taken.

Jim
--
Jim Menard, jimm@io.com, http://www.io.com/~jimm/
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a Perl
script." -- Programming Perl, 2nd edition