On Apr 26, 2013, at 7:27 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> What you propose, with "logical names", is a global namespace of short
> human-readable names with *no* conflict resolution authority. How do you see
> that working? From a namespace perspective, how is that any different than
> hanging identifiers off of the global object, as we do today? I'm not
> understanding how this strategy will facilitate namespace coordination. I
> can only see it leading to namespace confusion.
Well first, it's much cleaner than the global object, because it does not
involve the mess of prototype chains and sharing space with a DOM object's
properties and methods.
There is, of course, a need for people to agree on common naming for shared
modules. If they want to use conventions to avoid name collisions, there's in
fact nothing preventing them from doing something like Java's reverse-DNS:
import spawn from "org/calculist/taskjs";
import Promise from "io/tilde/RSVP";
And note that Java also does not mandate reverse-DNS, it's just a convention.
But in fact, that convention is really annoying and people hate it. Node uses
much simpler global names that are reserved via NPM. This does lead to
collisions and some people don't like that; an alternative system could use
usernames. These are all viable alternatives, and what will really be needed
will be package management systems like NPM for the web. What we are creating
here is the basic semantics that provides a way for people to refer to shared
modules. People can and should build package management systems, including
tools, servers, and web sites, on top of this.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
