I was hoping that the question would elicit a choice of name, if that wasn't clear. But in any case, great to have another option in the package ecosystem!
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:17:59 AM UTC-6, Will Wilson wrote: > > Well, I just blew away the old repository and created a new one as a > proper package anyway, so 'fdb.jl' it is. > > Honest answer: I had an itch that I wanted to scratch with both Julia and > FoundationDB, and nobody had written bindings yet. If somebody else > (including my employer) finds this useful, great! > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Patrick O'Leary > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:38:05 PM UTC-6, >> [email protected]: >>> >>> The naming follows our existing convention, where all of our bindings >>> packages are named fdb-*. How strict are the naming practices in the Julia >>> community? >>> >> >> It's a convention; there's no technical restriction. Honest question: are >> you trying to get FoundationDB users to Julia, or Julia users to >> FoundationDB? >> >> The compromise solution is to keep the repository named fdb-julia, but >> name the main module FoundationDB. But this also breaks convention where >> the module shares the name of the package, and might be confusing from the >> Julia side. >> > >
