From: Bob Hutchison <hutch@...>
Date: 2001-12-06T22:31:58+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27678] Re: Package Naming

On 01/12/05 1:57 PM, "Mark Hahn" <mchahn@facelink.com> wrote:

> 
>> 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.

Years ago, I had similar reservations when I first saw this with java. Since
then my reservations have mostly disappeared -- the problem is so serious in
java, and the solution does work. 'Refactoring' the package names when they
change remains a difficult problem in java (is this really 'refactoring'?).
This is difficult in java because, as someone else pointed out, the package
name, the module name, and the paths to .java and .class files are all
closely related.

> 
> 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.

I'll point out that <project-name>.sourceforge.net is perfectly OK to use as
part of the module name -- that is, until you move your project to savannah
:-)

> 
> Thinking Ruby will never get to the level of success of Java would be
> extremely short-sighted.
>