IIRC, it really was the possibility of mix-ups that was the idea behind using TLDs for package names. At least with TLDs, one can reasonably assume that the groups sharing the same TLD could work out organizing package naming conventions amongst themselves. Without the convention, the IT groups of widget.com and widget.org would just have to hope that they never have a common customer, or they never work on any package with the same name.
The problem about unique names doesn't apply to JAR files because you can just rename them. Let's at least be thankful we don't have to use URIs (http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/04/13/namespace-uris.html). :) Hubert On 6/17/05, Adam Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since it's Friday and I'm just about to start a new project, I thought > I'd ask everyone what they think about something that's always bugged me. > > Package names in Java. Why do we all have com.blah.blah or > org.apache.stuff.xxx instead of just plain blah.blah.blah and > apache.stuff.xxx? <snip/> > And even if there is, why is the mix-up possibility so important when it > comes to package names, when it's not considered when it comes to jar > naming conventions. If there ever was a com.apache.struts, what would > they call their jar? Would they have to use com_struts-1.2.7.jar > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
