Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories!
Paul Cager wrote:
Zapotec wrote:
Whereas I recognize the technical and engineering reasons for requiring
the deeply nested long directory names, I also have to say I agree that
they can be a pain in the butt, on two counts:
I find it interesting that the convention is to use directory
hierarchies (e.g. com/sun/xml/internal) rather than a single directory
(e.g. com.sun.xml.internal). I wonder why they did that. Was it purely
pragmatic (e.g. some architectures might not support multiple dots in
a directory name), or was it to provide the illusion of a hierarchical
package namespace?
I wish Java _did_ provide a hierarchical package structure, e.g. a
package-private member in com.acme would be visible in com.acme.widget.
Stay tuned for super-packages, er, modules, coming eventually, we hope, to a
Java near you.
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=294
The JLS does not require a hierarchical directory structure to support
packages even today.
<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/packages.html#7.2>
Packages are namespaces. In this they are similar to URNs, which need not be
hierarchical. It is sometimes convenient that subpackages are not part of the
hierarchically antecedent package.
--
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg