From: Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...>
Date: 2007-12-30T01:52:43+09:00
Subject: Re: Organization of standard and 3rd party libraries


On Dec 22, 2007, at 8:58 AM, John Joyce wrote:
>> I think this concept of <package_name>/<category_name> is a very  
>> good idea. It does help to encapsulate things in a logical way.
> As for other people's projects conforming...
> unless something happens with ruby and gems on this kind of thing  
> (including adding some sort of namespace) you're likely to see  
> resistance from many people.
> Many people are protective and sensitive about their libraries.  
> Even if it is open source they want control.
> Some folks are more willing to let the software take on its own  
> existence.


Instead of trying to come up with a single organization
that satisfies everyone, why not partition the name space:

    std/...       # specified by Matz and company
    rc/...        # specified by Ruby Central community
    rf/...        # specified by Ruby Forge community
    x/...         # unregistered namespace, first come, first serve

The idea is that the top-level name would identify the
organizer and/or organizing principle for the lower-level
names.  The x/... suggestion is similar to how extensions are
proposed to mime types or mail headers.  New top-level names
could be proposed and then approved by Matz and company but
ideally would remain small and would not clash with any existing
well-known project names.

Not sure how this might interact with the Ruby class/module namespace,
but any attempt to standardize either namespace should probably be
coordinated.

Gary Wright