From: "Thomas R. Corbin" Date: 2001-12-06T13:52:38+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:27615] Re: Package Naming 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) What circumstances caused you to have to do so many refactorings? I'm wondering if I've just been lucky, but I haven't really had to do it all that often.