This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Agile Buzz
by James Robertson.
Original Post: How many Names can you Pack in a Space?
Feed Title: Travis Griggs - Blog
Feed URL: http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/rssBlog/travis-rss.xml
Feed Description: This TAG Line is Extra
Generally speaking, I can't see any reason to. Originally, when VW Namespaces roled out, there was this notion that everyone/company/institution would create a high level namespace. And then you could create your individual namespaces under them. There was a wiki page set up to register them. I did. Many other's have as well. I no longer use that namespace. And I'm not sure I see why others should either. How dare I challenge this scheme? Well, for one, I have a reputation to keep here.
The reason I no longer subscribe to this model is I found myself asking "What's the point?" One of the goals of doing namespaces was to reduce naming conflicts. It allows individuals from two separate companies to both implement a Server object, and then they can be coresident in the same image, because they're qualified by their separate environments. Implicit in this, is the desire/ability to "share" code amongst ourselves. The mechanism for doing that is the Packcel (pronounced Pak-səl; means Package and/or Parcel, soon to be one and the same in VW7.3). And here's the thing, the names of these Packcel's are in a namespace of their own. You can't load two packages of the same name. The namespace for Packcels is flat. Given that, what's the point of nesting namespaces? I'm not arguing that you have to have a namespace per package (though I think generally applied, leads to the best encapsulation and least down the road maintenance), I'm saying there's no point in having a namespace structure that is more complex than your packaging structure.
This is yesterday's blog. Hey, do you see the schwa (upside down dictionary e) up there? To bad VW couldn't show that to me
Previous Topic
