> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edmund Lian [mailto:elian@...]
> 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.