From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2001-12-06T03:41:21+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27589] Re: Package Naming

Hi --

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Rich Kilmer wrote:

> > -----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)


So then, could we, ummmm, not do it?


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav