# Organization of standard and 3rd party libraries **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [December 20, 2007, 1:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/organization-of-standard-and-3rd-party-libraries/123768 "2007-12-20T13:25:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2007, 1:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/organization-of-standard-and-3rd-party-libraries/123768/1 "2007-12-20T13:25:16Z")
Do you think Ruby’s standard library would be better if it was organized more categorically? Might it, in turn, encourage 3rd party library developers to categorize their libraries better as well? AFAIK net/ is the only categorized set of libs in the standard lib and Austin is one of the very few who religiously organizes his libraries in this manner. Is categorization a good idea, or a waste of time? T. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2007, 1:55pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/organization-of-standard-and-3rd-party-libraries/123768/2 "2007-12-20T13:55:06Z")
On Dec 20, 2007 1:24 PM, Trans [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Do you think Ruby’s standard library would be better if it was > organized more categorically? Might it, in turn, encourage 3rd party > library developers to categorize their libraries better as well? AFAIK > net/ is the only categorized set of libs in the standard lib and > Austin is one of the very few who religiously organizes his libraries > in this manner. > > Is categorization a good idea, or a waste of time? > A good idea I believe, but only if it comes naturally. I have no idea > if categories could be applied already, maybe the SL is just not big > enough right now… > I believe that it might indeed be a nice thing for 3rd party > developers to have entry points into a tree. > I imagine things like > require “extensions/facets…” > or > require “text/ruport” > or > require “crazy/labrador/” 😉 maybe one could peek over to Python or Perl and steal some ideas ;). Cheers Robert > T. – [http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/](http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/) * * * All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Schopenhauer (attr.) ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2007, 10:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/organization-of-standard-and-3rd-party-libraries/123768/3 "2007-12-20T22:33:18Z")
On Dec 20, 7:54 am, “Robert D.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > if categories could be applied already, maybe the SL is just not big > maybe one could peek over to Python or Perl and steal some ideas ;). > I see it the other way around: require “facets/extensions/…” require “ruport/text/…” require “labrador/crazy/…” Whereby the first name represents a project/package and the rest indicates the categories. Ruby itself has no sub-namespace, of course. That stands to reason as it is all “toplevel”. What would be interesting then is to be able to “include” a namespace. Ie. Something like… use “ruport” then requre ‘text/…’ But that’s not really the main point. Just wondering about categorization in general. Unlike the Perl, where CSPAN provides the incentive to do so, the Ruby community doesn’t seem to do much at all –and really there seems to be no standard ideas to speak of on the matter. For example, I recently talked to a maintainer of the Text project about perhaps a merger with my English project. His response was that he felt certain libs belonged to the Text namespace and others to the English namespace. But that’s misconstrued IMO. I’ve never thought of English as anything more than a project name. By Tim’s reasoning it would mean he has taken ownership of the entire Text category. Which is clearly silly. So that’s why I think “{package}/{catagory}/…” makes sense. T. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2007, 2:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/organization-of-standard-and-3rd-party-libraries/123768/4 "2007-12-22T14:59:15Z")
On Dec 20, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Trans wrote: > > > libraries > > > require “extensions/facets…” > > > require “ruport/text/…” > > > then > > > others to the English namespace. But that’s misconstrued IMO. I’ve > > > never thought of English as anything more than a project name. By > > > Tim’s reasoning it would mean he has taken ownership of the entire > > > Text category. Which is clearly silly. So that’s why I think > > > “{package}/{catagory}/…” makes sense. > > T. I think this concept of \/\ 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. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2007, 5:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/organization-of-standard-and-3rd-party-libraries/123768/5 "2007-12-29T17:15:06Z")
On Dec 22, 2007 2:58 PM, John J. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > library developers to categorize their libraries better as well? > > > > enough right now… > > > > like… > > –and really there seems to be no standard ideas to speak of on the I have a mild concern wiith this, I would like to have things like the followwing too meta/enum/whatever a whatever/enum/meta seems less natural to me, but I guess I would adapt, nice that we agree on this in general 😉 Cheers Robert – [http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/](http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/) * * * All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Schopenhauer (attr.) ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2007, 5:53pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/organization-of-standard-and-3rd-party-libraries/123768/6 "2007-12-29T17:53:11Z")
On Dec 22, 2007, at 8:58 AM, John J. wrote: > > I think this concept of \/\ 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 W.