From: Rich Kilmer <rich@...>
Date: 2001-12-06T03:39:17+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27588] Re: Package Naming

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:33 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:27587] Re: Package Naming
> 
> 
> Hello --
> 
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Mark Hahn wrote:
> 
> > The forest service must be a hotbed for beauracracy.  The only 
> requirement
> > is that the dot-com name be used.  Thus all the length you are 
> showing is
> > the fault of the organization, not the naming convention.
> >
> > The names I have used over the years are like:
> >
> >     com.foo.util.Sorting  or  com.foo.acctg.Billing
> >
> > Your names could have easily been us.fed.fs.Sorting also.
> 
> I'm still not getting this.  I know Java does it, but still...
> Why should software be known to its users and the system that
> uses it by, in the first instance, its provenance?  What
> happens when someone else takes over development?  Or someone
> moves?  Or....
> 

You get into refactoring hell ;) 
(from someone who had to do this MANY times)

-Rich