From: Rich Kilmer <rich@...>
Date: 2001-12-06T02:50:39+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27577] Re: Package Naming



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas R. Corbin [mailto:tc@clark.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 12:05 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML; undisclosed-recipients:
> Subject: [ruby-talk:27568] RE: Package Naming
> 
> 
> Mark Hahn wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I like java's dot-com convention.  It absolutely guarantees no name
> > clashes.
> 
>         I like it too.  sometimes it seems clumsy, but then any 
> hierarchy can have
> it's disadvantages. 
> 

Here is my problem with Java's packaging structure:

file paths==namespace paths
or
com.blah.packagex.classy == com/blah/packagex/classy.class

I think it IMPORTANT that we maintain a seperation between 
file/paths and namespaces (which Ruby does right now).

require 'patha/pathb/filex'

can have ANY module namespace in it.

I think a combination of the file paths being based on a domain/other model:

require 'com/domain/file.rb'

And the module names(space) being based on the subject hierarchy:

module Text
  module Markup
    module XML
      module REXML
         ...
      end
    end
  end
end

...could then be loaded (for example)

require 'com/sean-russell/rexml.rb'

...and "aliased" like this for ease of use.

REXML = Text::Markup::XML::REXML

p = REXML::Parser.new(file)

Going further I would have a convention where the library creator creates an
'include' file "com/sean-russell/rexml.rb" that require'd the appropriate
files from "com/sean-russell/rexml/xxx.rb". So if Sean were to create
and additional library "com/sean-russell/wsdl/..." he would also have an
'include' named "com/sean-russell/wsdl.rb".

-Rich