Re: Do xml-like namespaces make sense for Reiser4? (re: metas thread)

["John D. Heintz" <jheintz@pobox.com>]

Hans Reiser wrote:

> John D. Heintz wrote:
>
>> Hans Reiser wrote:
>>
>> Let me verify something: You are suggesting that the "metas" 
>> namespace be the entry point for all of the plugin namespaces? I had 
>> assumed that each plugin would create it's own. That does certainly 
>> reduce the scope of my problem.
>
>
> It can use metas, but what it does is up to it.  metas is a style 
> convention.
>
Okay, that is what I thought originally. That still means that user 
defined names and plugin defined names can in general conflict though.

>
> this is the beauty of there being an official maintainer for reiserfs 
> to handle such issues;-)
>
I would have been much happier to hear some strategy would enable 
plugins names to disambiguate themselves from each other and user 
defined names. In practice you might be right that a few dozen plugins 
can be "officially" integrated without too much trouble. Also, this 
issue could be dealt with later as well - I don't think now is the only 
opportunity for addressing it.

> plugins are not created as easily as files;-), there will be few 
> enough that I can manage the issue as it happens
>
Yes, in the short to medium term you are probably right that you can 
deal with these issues as they happen. I'd like there to be some better 
way of dealing with resolving conflicts from unified namespaces then 
always "ask Hans".

Does some sort of syntactic shorthand actually break the set theoretic 
naming system rules?  Or is this just something you view as needless 
complexity?

Thanks for the replies,

John Heintz