| Title: | JAVA |
| Moderator: | KOALA::CIOT |
| Created: | Mon Nov 13 1995 |
| Last Modified: | Wed Jun 04 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 236 |
| Total number of notes: | 1251 |
According to several of the Java books, including Arnold & Gosling's "The Java Programming Language", the naming convention for naming packages is something like: COM.company.package So following that all packages defined by groups in DIGITAL should begin with: COM.digital For a specific component you could then append the component/product name or code and use that as the basis of your product/component specific packages. For example, Performance Manager uses pmgr as its code, so our packages start with: COM.digital.pmgr Are other groups within DIGITAL following or intending to follow this convention? What is the policy of the Java group at DIGITAL. Thanks - David
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 220.1 | MSKRAT::CIOT | Thu May 22 1997 15:09 | 6 | ||
Hopefully we won't call or packages (if we write any:) COM.digital
since there is more than one company name beginning with Digital !
May be COM.dec will do
Thierry
| |||||
| 220.2 | digital.com is safe, but I will digress a bit | STAR::PARKE | Sometimes pigeon, Sometimes statue | Fri May 23 1997 13:56 | 34 |
Re .1
BUT, DEC/Digital is the only .digital.com on the internet.
The thing that gets me about this wonderful scheme is that it depends
on a company having a net name (or collection of same it seems). There
are actually software companies in existence that still get their
software in boxes and on CDroms and have no net address of their own.
Even on the net, this could be a problem. Say my host is
mycomputer.foo.com
where foo is my "provider" and foo goes out of business (a local
provider recently did so with only a few hours notice). Now
I connect to another provider bar.org. Now, to keep with the naming
I could:
have used com.foo.mycomputer.
and then need to change to org.bar.mycomputer.
or I could use
mycomputer. (subject to confusion)
or my small business could fork over the tariff to have my own
domain (theparkes.com) but shoestring operations might find that
over the top.
I digress, but I really worry about "standards" that determine that
one size WILL fit all when there is a good argument that the standard
should look farther before being implemented.
Bill
| |||||