On Dec 22, 2007, at 8:58 AM, John J. 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
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