From: "Thomas R. Corbin" <tc@...>
Date: 2001-12-06T03:24:54+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27584] Re: Package Naming

Rich Kilmer wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----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'

        I like this.

> 
> And the module names(space) being based on the subject hierarchy:
> 
> module Text
>   module Markup
>     module XML
>       module REXML
>          ...
>       end
>     end
>   end
> end

        Someone posted about this, they had a simple scheme to keep this from 
getting so deep.  For all I know it was in this thread, I'm getting so 
confused, reading so many ruby news articles today.

> 
> ..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".

        Nice!

> 
> -Rich