On Monday 12 July 2004 14:56, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 01:49:08 +0900, Sean O'Dell <sean / celsoft.com> wrote:
> > I wanted to give my libraries perfectly ordinary names, such
> > as with my interface library, but when I used the name "interface" people
> > went ballistic because someone else had already used the name.  I would
> > gladly get rid of the "celsoft.com" part of library names, but since
> > names are often decided based on who grabs it first, I have little
> > choice.  Well, I could name my libraries with brand-name style names,
> > like 3DInterfacePro or InterfaceMagic, or YAIL (Yet Another Interface
> > Library) instead of just Interface, but I don't particularly care for
> > those sorts of names.  Better to use the most appropriate, simplest name,
> > and just partition it under a domain name.
>
> Unsurprisingly, I disagree. Your "Interface" library could have been
> called "Interface::Check"; I personally would have contacted Daniel
> and seen if he would have been willing to rename his Interface library
> to "Interface::JavaStyle" or something like that. The problem you ran
> into, Sean, is that you simply released your library as Interface
> without checking to see if there was a namespace collision.

It's not simply an interface checking library, though; cs/Interface provides a 
way to describe interface patterns, apply them to classes, objects and 
modules and there are built-in interfaces already applied to some Ruby 
built-ins.  Interface::Check would not be an appropriate name.  The only name 
that I felt worked was Interface, which was taken, so putting Interface under 
a domain unique to me is entirely appropriate.

	Sean O'Dell