This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: gnu.* namespace discussion
Brian Jones wrote:
> In what way is anyone else using gnu.java.* which conflicts with GNU
> Classpath? Maybe that's the real problem. No central name space
> controller has been forthcoming from the FSF.
I didn't see this message (it doesn't seem to have made it to
java-discuss), so I don't know what the "real problem" referred to is.
The central name space controller is supposed to be
Stuart Ballard <email@example.com> writes:
> Not to beat a dead horse, but I think that's why Sun chose to use the
> reverse-domain-name scheme - the central namespace controller is already
> established and Sun didn't need to do any work on controlling the
No, but each organization still does. You may notice that Sun does
not appears to be folliwing their reverse-domain-name scheme *within*
the com.sun package. That seems to be generally true: People follow
the reverse-domain-name scheme for the first two parts, but beyond
that they tend to pick more common-sense names. In other works: They
just pay lip-service to the reverse-domain-name scheme, and I don't
blame them: It's a bad solution, and there is no reason why Gnu should
follow it. See: http://www.gnu.org/software/java/why-gnu-packages.txt
> In that case, we could be using org.classpath and do whatever we wanted
> to within that space.
Sure, but what problem would that solve?
> I once heard someone say that if a convincing case could be made to the
> FSF in favor of moving to the reverse-domain scheme from the gnu.*
> scheme, they would maybe consider it. Perhaps the
> central-namespace-controller issue is the basis for a convincing case?
Adding a "org." in front does not make the problem any easier or harder.