GUI Library Task Force

Ketil Malde
27 Sep 2001 10:25:24 +0200

Lennart Augustsson <> writes:

> "S. Alexander Jacobson" wrote:

>> Great.  So that is something that goes into some library conventions
>> document.  Java has a convention that libraries should have reverse domain
>> name structure.  Is that how we should use _?

> Yes, I think that could be the way.  And in addition there should be some
> language libraries (just like Java has java.*).

Even if . is used as hierarchy separator, I think one might consider
using a _ for the top level reverse DNS hierarchy, instead of blindly
following the Java example.  

I.e. instead of No.Nera..., use Nera_No at the top level.  I think
this has a couple of advantages: 

        - less chance of a name clash 
        - sorting by "real" name

Ther former is probably the more important, when ICANN in their infinite
wisdom invents new top level domains to broaden the hierarchy, in
order to solve the problems caused by the hierarchy's
shallowness... Anyway, I think it would be nice to be able to use
short, concise hierarchy names like "Std" or "Sys" without worrying
about the capriciocities of the net.

Having stuff from and grouped near
each other sounds attractive, too.

The downside is a wider hierarchy, but I think that most installations
would only include packages from a handful of third parties anyway,
and third parties submitting modules that many need, should have them
standardized into the main tree.  One could of course group all third
parties under a Contrib branch in order to remove top-level clutter.

It is quite possible that I'm missing out on some important advantage
of the Java scheme, but I haven't seen it come up in the discussion,
and would like alternatives to at least be considered before turned

If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants