Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > What are com.blah or org.blah?

Reply
Thread Tools

What are com.blah or org.blah?

 
 
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-07-2007
John Ersatznom <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Has anyone come up with any good alternatives for Java developers
> without any domain names to call home?


Just use whatever you deem unique for you. The use of the domain name
is a convention, not enforced in any way, but is the package naming
convention least likely to generate collisions when someone else uses
the classes. For code that lives just in your system, use whatever you
want.

Counterexample: Microsoft early on used the package structure
"com.ms.*" even though they didn't have the "ms.com" domain;
presumably "ms" was easier to type for lazy Redmond programmers than
"microsoft".
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Uppal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-07-2007
Furious George wrote:

> I've got it. Everyone who owns a MAC address can have a java domain of
> the form
> mac.${MACADDRESS}.${TIMESTAMP}
> where ${MACADDRESS} is their respective MAC address and ${TIMESTAMP} is
> the Unix timestamp of some date in which they owned the MAC address.


Nice

-- chris


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Uppal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-07-2007
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote:

> Counterexample: Microsoft early on used the package structure
> "com.ms.*" even though they didn't have the "ms.com" domain;


And ms.com was a real domain at the time too -- for yet another dose of
corporate arrogance. I seem to recall that it was owned by some law firm at
the time (a very vague memory), although it's owned by Morgan Stanley now.

I agree, though, that the package naming convention is better viewed as a very
sensible guideline, than as a Rule Which Must Never Be Broken.

-- chris



 
Reply With Quote
 
John Ersatznom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2007
Chris Uppal wrote:
> It makes no difference how you name your packages if they are only used within
> your own organisation (living room, whatever). The only constraint is that
> you avoid "inbound" clashes (as it were) which you can do by, say, putting all
> your stuff under "local" (local.mystuff.whatever) since "local" isn't a TLD and
> is unlikely to become one. If, on the other hand, you /do/ want to make your
> code more generally available then you almost certainly are going to put it
> somewhere with an associated global URL -- in which case you can use that for
> the root of the package names.


Then you get into the problem of ensuring that that URL continues to
belong to your software for as long as the software remains in use. It's
very hard to get any kind of stable Web hosting at all on a budget
nowadays ("stable" as in "url doesn't change -- ever"). Probably you
also want the javadocs to be hosted stably for others to link to.

Why isn't there a good, free Web host these days, let alone one with
staying power that doesn't rearrange things internally on its own? It
seems you're artificially constrained to three options -- keep your
software entirely private, use an existing open source hosting site like
SourceForge, or go commercial *and be successful*. Anything else means
paying for hosting out of your own pocket, *on top* of whatever you
already pay for network access (shouldn't hosting of at least a small to
medium amount of data at a stable address be included as basic network
access? But it's not...) and that means you'll be paying to keep your
Java online and legitimate for a lifetime (its or yours).

So much for "free", even as in beer...
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Ersatznom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2007
Chris Uppal wrote:
> Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote:
>
>>Counterexample: Microsoft early on used the package structure
>>"com.ms.*" even though they didn't have the "ms.com" domain;

>
> And ms.com was a real domain at the time too -- for yet another dose of
> corporate arrogance. I seem to recall that it was owned by some law firm at
> the time (a very vague memory), although it's owned by Morgan Stanley now.
>
> I agree, though, that the package naming convention is better viewed as a very
> sensible guideline, than as a Rule Which Must Never Be Broken.


Agreed. In fact, given the choice between paying an additional $35 a
month for life to "rent" my package name root or breaking the
convention, I'll pick breaking the convention -- especially on my
current income, which is not particularly stellar (under $20K/year USD)...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Daniel Dyer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2007
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 07:54:23 -0000, John Ersatznom
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Agreed. In fact, given the choice between paying an additional $35 a
> month for life to "rent" my package name root or breaking the
> convention, I'll pick breaking the convention -- especially on my
> current income, which is not particularly stellar (under $20K/year
> USD)...


A fair point but, just to be clear, it's not per month - $35 will get you
2 years.

Dan.

--
Daniel Dyer
http://www.uncommons.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments