choosing a package name

[Luke]

The convention for choosing a package name is to use your registered
domain name, in reverse order. What do you do if you don't have a
domain name and want to publish your package?

 

[Roedy Green]

The convention for choosing a package name is to use your registered
domain name, in reverse order. What do you do if you don't have a
domain name and want to publish your package?

You think of what name you would like if you could spare $7 to
register one. Check if it is in use, and if not, squat on it.

See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/domainnames.html

You don't need a website to register a domain name.

 

[Chris Smith]

The convention for choosing a package name is to use your registered
domain name, in reverse order. What do you do if you don't have a
domain name and want to publish your package?

Probably the only really important guidelines would be:

1. Pick something that will be fairly unique and identify you.
2. Don't use something that would be a valid reversed domain name.

Plenty of widely used packages don't follow the domain name convention.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

 

[Andrew Thompson]

Where are you going to publish it?[1]

You think of what name you would like if you could spare $7 to
register one. Check if it is in use, and if not, squat on it.

If the OP has valid reason to claim a domain name, it
is *not* 'squatting', irrespective of whether thay intend
to back it up with a site.

'Squatting' is a term that originates from Australia
(AFAIU), which means 'occupying and making use of land/property
which is owned, but unused, by others'

There is a (certain) amount of respect for the squatter,
since they are usually doing useful things with properties
that may otherwise lay fallow.

The Net meaning loses the bit about 'doing something useful'
with the land / address / site. A Cybersquatteer wants to do
just the opposite - to alerting the visitor that they are in the
wrong place. Instead the visitor stumbles around a site
that might look 'similar' to the one they expect, but achieves nothing
useful. That is part of the CyberSquatter's 'sales pitch'.

You don't need a website to register a domain name.

True, and you can direct a domain name to an *unpaid* site,
though be sure to check that is OK with the host.

[1] Given you are going to publish it, I recommend you
get a domain name & a free site to do so.

As far as the actaual domain name goes, you might even register
your own name, like I did in athompson.info.

Just don't forget that something that works well for both
domain and package prefixes is - keep it *short*.

--
Andrew Thompson
physci.org 1point1c.org javasaver.com lensescapes.com athompson.info
"The captain seemed to understand, because the next day the cap' went out
and drafted a band."
The Andrews Sisters 'Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy'

 

[Andrew Thompson]

Plenty of widely used packages don't follow the domain name convention.

Perhaps so, but I think it is a bad idea.

There are a number of times I have managed to track down
the source of some 'wierd' class purely by typing the
'reversed package name' in the browser. Of course, that is
from 'debugging' code on usenet, a quite unusual situation.

I still don't think it is a good idea to encourage abandoning
the practise though, especially since domain names can be
purchased so cheaply. (Would you trust a package from a source
that cannot afford the $7/year? I might, but it would take
some investigation before I was prepared to use it)

 

[Niels Dybdahl]

The convention for choosing a package name is to use your registered

domain name, in reverse order. What do you do if you don't have a
domain name and want to publish your package?

You might create a project on sf.net and use the resulting subdomain.

Niels Dybdahl

 

[Andrew Thompson]

You might create a project on sf.net and use the resulting subdomain.

Now, that is a *great* idea! (..and so logical, now you mention it)

- No cost
- Reliable address and site (where people will logically be
searching for sources/packages)
- A bunch of tools to assist distribution.
- A good place to get further developers interested in,
and developing, the software.

 

[Timbo]

You might create a project on sf.net and use the resulting subdomain.

This is a great idea, but note that you will have to release the
source code as stated in the sourceforge agreement when you sign up.

 

[jan V]

purchased so cheaply. (Would you trust a package from a source

that cannot afford the $7/year?

That's a rather weak argument. Microsoft's 2004 annual report states it had
revenues of $36.8 billion. Would you blindly trust them simply because
they've got more financial resources than some small countries have? Trust
should be granted for proving something else than financial clout...

 

[jan V]

The convention for choosing a package name is to use your registered
domain name, in reverse order. What do you do if you don't have a
domain name and want to publish your package?

For naming the deeper subpackages, here's an article I found useful:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2003/jw-0221-declaration.html

 

[Andrew Thompson]

'afford'.

That's a rather weak argument. Microsoft's 2004 annual report states it had
revenues of $36.8 billion. Would you blindly trust them simply because
they've got more financial resources than some small countries have? Trust
should be granted for proving something else than financial clout...

Who can 'publish a software package', yet not *afford* $7 per
year for a domain name in support of it?

My point was not so much about actual dollars, in any case,
but more 'identification'.

I would put more trust in something coming from johnsmith.info,
than I would in the same thing coming from (e-mail address removed).

(shrugs) YMMV.

And ..'trust MS'?!?

SheeEEsh, I don't 'trust' Sun, except in so far as that I
'trust' them both to act toward making a profit* within
something closely resembling the law.

* A task at which MS outshines Sun.

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

The convention for choosing a package name is to use your registered
domain name, in reverse order. What do you do if you don't have a
domain name and want to publish your package?

Register a domain name.

It's like $7 a year and you don't need to have a server hooked up to
it ... the domain doesn't have to resolve ... but it will be yours,
and yours alone.

 

[Oliver Wong]

The intention of using a domain name is that it's supposed to be
guaranteed to be unique. If you want to emulate something similar, use your
e-mail address instead of a domain name.

So if your e-mail address is (e-mail address removed), and you're working
on a project "foobar", then the root package might be:

org.bouncesswooch.spam.foobar

Just make sure your ISP (or whoever it is providing you with your e-mail
address) doesn't have a server whose name is the same as your e-mail.

Also, if your project is open source, you can get it hosted for free on
sourceforge. So if your project is called JTBRPG, for example, you could
make the package name.

net.sourceforge.jtbrpg

Register a domain name.

It's like $7 a year and you don't need to have a server hooked up to
it ... the domain doesn't have to resolve ... but it will be yours,
and yours alone.

I'm not a lawyer, but apparently there are "cybersquatting" laws which
say that if somebody wants a domain name, and you're not using it (even if
you're paying for it!), they can take it away from you. So it might be a
good idea to have a server hooked up to it, just in case.

- Oliver

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

The intention of using a domain name is that it's supposed to be
guaranteed to be unique. If you want to emulate something similar, use your
e-mail address instead of a domain name.

So if your e-mail address is (e-mail address removed), and you're working
on a project "foobar", then the root package might be:

org.bouncesswooch.spam.foobar

Just make sure your ISP (or whoever it is providing you with your e-mail
address) doesn't have a server whose name is the same as your e-mail.

Spelling aside, that solution isn't guaranteed. If you're not running
your own domain, you can't guarantee that your ISP will *never* put up
a public server with that hierarchy. Also, my feel is that most
people who don't use their own domain name don't keep a consistent
email address, switching with ISPs or as the spam gets too intense.
So that package structure wouldn't be much good after the next move.

Also, if your project is open source, you can get it hosted for free on
sourceforge. So if your project is called JTBRPG, for example, you could
make the package name.

net.sourceforge.jtbrpg

That sounds fine to me.

I'm not a lawyer, but apparently there are "cybersquatting" laws which
say that if somebody wants a domain name, and you're not using it (even if
you're paying for it!), they can take it away from you. So it might be a
good idea to have a server hooked up to it, just in case.

I wonder how they define "use". Given the java package naming
convention, I'd think that you could make a strong argument that
you're "using" the domain as long as you have packages that people
could get to somehow that follow the convention.

That being said, for a buck or so more, most hosting companies will
provide you with an email redirect, at which point you *are* using the
domain for email. I hope the laws aren't so poorly written as to only
consider HTTP on port 80 usage. But I haven't read them ...

 

[Raymond DeCampo]

Spelling aside, that solution isn't guaranteed. If you're not running
your own domain, you can't guarantee that your ISP will *never* put up
a public server with that hierarchy. Also, my feel is that most
people who don't use their own domain name don't keep a consistent
email address, switching with ISPs or as the spam gets too intense.
So that package structure wouldn't be much good after the next move.

You are both forgetting that it doesn't matter if the ISP has a server
with that name or not. What matters is if the ISP has Java programmers
creating packages like com.bouncesswooch.spam. You would have intruded
on the namespace rightly belonging to the ISP in this case.

Ray

 

[Monique Y. Mudama]

You are both forgetting that it doesn't matter if the ISP has a
server with that name or not. What matters is if the ISP has Java
programmers creating packages like com.bouncesswooch.spam. You
would have intruded on the namespace rightly belonging to the ISP in
this case.

Good point. This just seems to support the idea that getting your own
domain is the best way to tackle this problem.

 

[Thomas Hawtin]

Good point. This just seems to support the idea that getting your own
domain is the best way to tackle this problem.

So where does one find a reputable company that will register domain
names cheaply?

I've heard some horror stories. Checking availability then going back a
couple days later to buy it, only to find that the company has bought it
itself. Attempting to transfer the name only to find a very expensive
exit clause.

Tom Hawtin

 

[Roedy Green]

My point was not so much about actual dollars, in any case,
but more 'identification'.

I would put more trust in something coming from johnsmith.info,
than I would in the same thing coming from (e-mail address removed)

If you have a website, you are more likely to be around to handle
problems that if you have only an email.

 

[Roedy Green]

For naming the deeper subpackages, here's an article I found useful:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2003/jw-0221-declaration.html

Good essay.

It is good to see the "obvious" stuff written down so everyone coming
along new does not have to learn it from bitter experience.

 

[Roedy Green]

I wonder how they define "use". Given the java package naming
convention, I'd think that you could make a strong argument that
you're "using" the domain as long as you have packages that people
could get to somehow that follow the convention.

I have a friend who bought up all kinds of domains that were
misspellings of big company names, then put up some rather
inflammatory opinion pieces on them. He was dragged into arbitration
"court" over and over and repeatedly lost.

He actually did them a service by pointing people the proper website,
but of course irritating the heck out of fundamentalist Christians on
the way.