On Oct 11, 9:52 am, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > This is true, but again, the distinction between theoretical and > practical problem emerges. The set of mainstream apps in the wild is > much larger than the set of in house apps controlled by any > company/group - so if the problem doesn't exist in practice for apps > in the wild, the potential for the same problem to emerge in the > smaller subset of in-house apps isn't that large.
Fair enough, though I don't see how you could know the number of in- house apps written by companies. I don't want to labour the point, either. > On top of that, companies have the ability to rename their in house > resources; they don't have the ability to force apps in the wild to > change their name. > > I was referring to the fact that if your name is unique, it's easy for > people to find it. Google isn't good at disambiguating, so it's in the > interests of every project owner to choose a name that is unique. Yes, but I don't see the relevance to the disambiguation issue. > As a project maintainer, it's in your interest to choose a unique > name, and this enlightened self interest has been sufficient to ensure > a namespace that has been conflict free in my experience. That's the name of the package as a whole, there's no reason why 'django-mingus' necessarily have to a package name that ends in 'mingus'. > So we're talking about a hypothetical situation with two applications > named tagging, which *both* need to be used in a single project, where > *neither* application can have their name changed (either because they > are both in the wild, and the self interest or because in-house > policies won't allow a rename). > > Again - I don't deny that there is a problem in theory. I'm just not > convinced that it is a problem in practice. I acknowledged at the outset that it was a hypothetical example, and that I personally don't have that problem any more, though I did at the time (way back when). I also didn't open that ticket originally, so someone else at least would have come across the issue. But if you're saying that since it's all open source and users can always rename their modules (and references to them) to work around the problem, then I suppose it's up to the community to say whether that's a problem or not. And should this be posted on django-users, since perhaps this might have bitten people who don't follow this list? I presume the django-users readership is quite a bit larger than django- developers. Regards, Vinay Sajip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
