From: Mark Hahn Date: 2001-12-06T03:57:58+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:27592] Re: Package Naming > What happens when someone else takes over development? That is up to the seller and the buyer. It is not a big problem for the seller to not use an old name that matches something he sold. The name clshing problem is very real in a large software community. It is not an academic exercise. Both Windows and Java use organization based naming, probably because it just works. I share the sentiment that it sucks to have things organized by capitalistic organizations, but the only other solution I can think of is a centralized naming organization, which is certainly not a trouble-free solution either. It is even less democratic than the dot-com convention. Thinking Ruby will never get to the level of success of Java would be extremely short-sighted. -----Original Message----- From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 10:33 AM 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.... David -- David Alan Black home: dblack@candle.superlink.net work: blackdav@shu.edu Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav