You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
While the idea of the library is to have agreeable basic building blocks to share across http-related lower level packages, the name is very generic and maybe we should keep that free in general. I know that we don't yet have a strict policy on this on the opam repo but I think we are still well in time to rename it.
Some options could be e.g. cohttp-base, cohttp-common, http-common (kind of still generic but maybe more precise). I am not happy about any of those for now and I don't have a strong opinion about the renaming yet, for http I think the library is probably generic enough to warrant the generic name. But it is worth having a discussion about this. Even more so since as opam-repository maintainer I have an unfair advantage here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've read the point and I think it's only faintly applicable for a package like Config, and is even less relevant for this package. I've maintained a bunch of packages with generic names (such as Re) and have used equally many (Base, Core, Async). It's never been a problem in practice. Should it ever become a problem, reasonable devs just rename whatever needs to be renamed to avoid collisions (just like in your ocamlscript example).
In general, namespaces are a problem in OCaml that needs to be solved at the language level. Adding useless prefixes/suffixes everywhere is making the life everyone a little more miserable for the 0.0001% of case where it matters. I don't like that trade-off.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. In the meantime I had reached a similar conclusion. I'll leave the issue open a bit longer in case there are new thoughts from other people
@dinosaure makes a very valid point concerning
http
in ocaml/opam-repository#25068 (comment).While the idea of the library is to have agreeable basic building blocks to share across http-related lower level packages, the name is very generic and maybe we should keep that free in general. I know that we don't yet have a strict policy on this on the opam repo but I think we are still well in time to rename it.
Some options could be e.g.
cohttp-base
,cohttp-common
,http-common
(kind of still generic but maybe more precise). I am not happy about any of those for now and I don't have a strong opinion about the renaming yet, for http I think the library is probably generic enough to warrant the generic name. But it is worth having a discussion about this. Even more so since as opam-repository maintainer I have an unfair advantage here.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: