[libxml-devel] Some changes for consideration

Trans

unread,

Apr 6, 2008, 6:51:40 PM4/6/08

to libxml...@rubyforge.org

Hi,

I'm going to make a new release with the minor fixes I mentioned
earlier.

I would also like us to consider these changes:

1) Rename 'libxml_so' to 'libxmlc'.

2) Rename the package from 'libxml-ruby' to 'libxml'.

Any objections to moving forward with these?

Also I would like to ask about the namespace we are using. It seems to
me rather overbearing to be using the whole of the XML:: namespace.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate ise LibXML:: ? I realize it would be
a major interface change, but it seems like the right thing to do. And
if we do go ahead with changing the package name, maybe it's a good
time to make this transition too.

T.
_______________________________________________
libxml-devel mailing list
libxml...@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel

Saurabh Nanda

unread,

Apr 7, 2008, 2:08:07 AM4/7/08

to libxml...@rubyforge.org

> 2) Rename the package from 'libxml-ruby' to 'libxml'.

Why would you want to do that? Isn't having the -ruby suffix a good thing?

Saurabh.
--
http://nandz.blogspot.com
http://foodieforlife.blogspot.com

Dan Janowski

unread,

Apr 7, 2008, 2:01:05 PM4/7/08

to libxml...@rubyforge.org

renaming libxml_so to libxmlc serves some purpose
in eliminating confusion. The simplification of
removing the really redundant -ruby is excellent.
Of course it will break continuity with the gem
history. Should we be using the 2 in libxml2 to
mirror the tie more literally?

As for the XML namespace, that can be done
easily and compatibly by offering an include
that equates the XML const with the LibXML
const. We can also fix the location of version
consts as well.

Dan

Trans

unread,

Apr 7, 2008, 2:07:40 PM4/7/08

to libxml...@rubyforge.org

Hi--

On Apr 7, 2:08 am, "Saurabh Nanda" <saurabhna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2) Rename the package from 'libxml-ruby' to 'libxml'.
>
> Why would you want to do that? Isn't having the -ruby suffix a good thing?

I can understand why one would think so. But it's not necessary
because it is a "Ruby World" library. Ruby libs are installed into
ruby-specific location(s), so no naming issues arise. Package
maintainers for various distributions will add a "ruby" as needed
according to their own practices (eg. Debian). We do not need to do so
ourselves. Simple case in point, just consider all the other Ruby
packages out there, they do not suffix their package names with "-
ruby" either.

On the "why we should" front... For Ruby projects, the general/good
practice is to name the package, the site location and the toplevel
namespace all the same thing. I believe in this practice, and that it
should only be deviated from under special circumstance.

Currently all three differ for us:

libxml-ruby.gem
require 'libxml'
XML::

The "proper" names would be:

libxml.gem
require 'libxml'
LibXML::

And I would like to see us follow this practice.

T.

Keith Fahlgren

unread,

Apr 7, 2008, 3:09:58 PM4/7/08

to libxml...@rubyforge.org

On 4/7/08 11:07 AM, Trans wrote:

> The "proper" names would be:
>
> libxml.gem
> require 'libxml'
> LibXML::
>
> And I would like to see us follow this practice.

+1

Keith

Ben Lam

unread,

Apr 7, 2008, 3:27:48 PM4/7/08

to libxml...@rubyforge.org

Having worked in the department of redundancy department, I'd say the
proposed changes are solid.