> -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Lian [mailto:elian@;inbrief.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:15 AM > > On 10/29/2002 01:53:01 PM Stuart wrote: > > >At the risk of annoying some people, I think the idea of > using the reverse > >domain name in packages is a good idea to avoid any > potential problems. > > This presupposes a package will always be associated with a > specific domain > name, and that the domain name will be around unchanged forever. > > Here's an example of where this wouldn't work... Suppose package X is > developed by a company at domain company.com. Then, the company loses > interest in the package, and drops it, but allows someone > else to take it > over. Should the package still retain the original domain > name? I don't > think so since the company is no longer associated with the > package, and > may not want to be for legal or other reasons.
I don't think the example cited negates the idea of using domain names. I would say that if a package is dropped by one vendor, and picked up by another, that it is perfectly reasonable for the package to adopt a new name. Furthermore, in an open source environment, you could even use something like net.sf.webware.mypackage for a name. -Stuart- ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
