On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:22:01 -0700
Phil Hagelberg <p...@hagelb.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote:
> >> So maybe it's best to use the Java convention after all?
> >> It has been proven to scale, is widely used and plays well with
> >> whatever else is running on the JVM, which are strong points in its
> >> favor.
> >
> > I still don't buy it. The company I work for changed its domain over 4
> > years from contiteves.com over contiautomative.com to continental-
> > corporation.com and maybe its soon schaeffler-continental-automotive-
> > group.com or whatever. Should I always touch each and every code
> > module to fix the package names?
> p
> On top of that, I've taken over maintenance of several projects, some
> of which were started by people who don't even use Clojure anymore.
> Luckily they didn't use the com.my.domain namespace convention.
> Projects outlive peoples' interest in them, and they certainly outlive
> domain registration periods.
And why would them using the com.my.domain namespace convention make a
difference? Unless they were planning on starting *another* project
by the same name in a JVM-based language, there won't be a clash. And
if they're going to recycle the name, then using a project-based
namespace will cause a clash anyway.
People seem to be confused by the Java namespace convention deriving
names from DNS. They think that the names actually have something to
do with the domains in question. This isn't the case. Quoting the
Java Language Specification "The suggested convention for generating
unique package names is merely a way to piggyback a package naming
convention on top of an existing, widely known unique name registry
instead of having to create a separate registry for package names."
> > Just to understand the problem (honest questions; I don't know the
> > answers): How many open source projects are out there, which have the
> > same names? Is a clash in project names, that likely?
> Here's what I do: pick good project names[1]. Seriously. Spend some
> time thinking it through to find a word that's unique and still
> distinctive. This can be hard (naming *is* one of the two remaining
> difficult problems in Computer Science), but it's worth doing for
> other reasons anyway. Do your homework to ensure that nobody else is
> using that name. If some other project comes along later and clashes,
> that's their fault, and it can be resolved at clash time.
Python does that. After 15 years, things started clashing badly enough
to break critical features in optional libraries.
I'd rather avoid that if can.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
