[ruby-core:122343] [Ruby Misc#21385] Namespace: Suggesting a rename
Issue #21385 has been reported by fxn (Xavier Noria). ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113490 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by matheusrich (Matheus Richard). Another suggestion: Context. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113492 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). More evidence. The CRuby code base has the predicate `rb_namespace_p` (I think, since Ruby 2.7): ```c static inline bool rb_namespace_p(VALUE obj) { if (RB_SPECIAL_CONST_P(obj)) return false; switch (RB_BUILTIN_TYPE(obj)) { case T_MODULE: case T_CLASS: return true; default: break; } return false; } ``` and now it has a macro with similar name, but different meaning: ```c #define IS_NAMESPACE(obj) (CLASS_OF(obj) == rb_cNamespace) ``` ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113493 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). Agreed naming this new feature `Namespace` is very confusing and misleading. `isolates` doesn't sound right because they are not really isolated. I think `Context` would be fine. TruffleRuby has a similar feature called `InnerContext` (except those have separate heaps and are more like multiple interpreters + easy communication (notably enables passing an object from a context to another), but on a high semantics level it is very similar). ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113511 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by baweaver (Brandon Weaver). Some other ideas: * Package - Some conflict with Packwerk, but then again would likely be used with it very quickly. * Capsule - Similar to Package * Realm - Bit Tolkien-esque, but no significant precedence in Ruby of this name being used. * Zone - Similar implications as Realm, but a bit less archaic. Personally fond of Package, as it encapsulates a lot of what we would want out of such a feature, and also aligns with common tool usage that would be likely to leverage such features. Context can be mixed with RSpec a bit, but probably not a _huge_ issue. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113513 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by duerst (Martin Dürst). I strongly support this proposal. It would avoid a lot of confusion down the line. Ideally, we would use a term that makes it clear that this is something much more wide-reaching, and something that's supposed to be much more rarely used, than your everyday namespace facility that Ruby provides with modules. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113514 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). When I explain the feature a concept that I use naturally is "execution context". Like, "foo.rb runs in its own execution context, and that is set externally, foo.rb is not aware of it." ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113522 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). FYI: `Context` is conflict with Mastodon. https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/main/app/models/context.rb#L3 ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113530 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by cheba (Alexander Mankuta). hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) wrote in #note-9:
FYI: `Context` is conflict with Mastodon.
I’m fairly confident we can find at least 2 instances of `Namespace` in the wild. I don’t think this argument has much weight. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113566 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). Context, Capsule, Realm, and Zone do not seem to represent namespaces, so I don't want to adopt them (although I like those names). I like the name Package too. But I think we should reserve it for high-level APIs. FYI, I consider this namespace thing as a low level API. And I have a plan to provide higher level API in the future. Matz. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113598 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). I have to make myself clear. It's fine for me, if we rename Namespace. Matz. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113603 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). Oh, it is interesting to know there's a higher level API in the horizon. Looking forward to see what you have in mind! With that new context, a "cell" is a low-level thing with inner/independent activity, but it is permeable and can communicate with the exterior. As a metaphor maybe it could match. (Potential name conflicts aside.) ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113605 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by byroot (Jean Boussier). Regarding the name conflict, if this is meant as a low level API, we could consider something under the newly introduced `Ruby` module. E.g. `Ruby::Context`, `Ruby::Namespace`, etc etc. This also doesn't prevent deprecating the use of the equivalent top-level constant name for a potential alias in the future if that is desired. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113611 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). From the latest suggestions, I think `Realm` and `Context` are the best, since the feature about creating multiple sets of top-level constants/isolating them. Since it is a low-level API I think nesting under `Ruby::` would be good, and that avoids the conflicts as in #21341. I would say this feature isn't about namespaces, it's about semantically having a separate `Object` class and everything referenced from it. IOW, it's quite similar to creating a clean new Ruby interpreter with no visible sharing. The sharing is only an internal optimization/implementation detail, it should be transparent, if it's not it's a bug (because it then breaks the isolation and likely the use cases of this feature). In fact I think we should support implementations of this feature which do not use any internal sharing, so this feature could e.g. also be supported on TruffleRuby by using subinterpreters under the hood. Additionally this feature also supports communication and cross-references, that's also possible with subinterpreters (e.g. by proxying calls). From this high-level description I think it's clear `Realm` and `Context` are good names for this feature. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113617 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada). other ideas: * NameSpace (from ObjectSpace) * NameCapsule * RootNamespace * ModuleGroup * ModuleBag * ModuleSpace (by ledsun) (Namespace also separates global variables though) ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113628 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). `Ruby::Context` sounds good to me! ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113665 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). * Space * Verse * Scope * ClassLoader (joke) * Classbox ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113667 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). * World * NamaeSpace (namae is name in Japanese ;-) ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113686 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). For me "context" means something like `context = binding.eval("self")`, so I can't say I like `Context` very much for this. Actually none of the one-word suggestions sound quite right to me; they're either too generic or too cryptic. I think that `Namespace` is not such a bad name; classes loaded in one are not visible to the others, it really is a space for names, a namespace. It's just not a named namespace like classes and modules (assuming that #21316 is fixed). But the fact that core classes are "forked" in each namespace is something that the word `Namespace` doesn't convey. So yes it's a space for names, but not merely that. I think "sandbox" is really a descriptive word here, and btw I disagree that it must necessarily have a security connotation. `Ruby::NameSandbox` ? ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113691 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by opswole (Christopher Fagg). I'd like to throw Sector into the mix. Namespaces are defined as being "designed to provide separated spaces in a Ruby process, to isolate applications and libraries." A sector is defined as "an area or portion that is distinct from others". I can't seem to find any other reference to Sector(s) in Ruby so I don't think it'd clash with anything. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113692 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by masterleep2 (Bill Lipa). * Shard - from MMOs - also has the connotation that using this feature carelessly could result in hurting yourself * Isolator ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113693 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) wrote in #note-19:
ClassLoader (joke)
I'm not sure how I missed this but indeed this feature seems very much like Java's ClassLoader, i.e., a way to load files/"features"/modules/classes again in their own isolated top-level namespace (semantically a copy of `Object` except it shares identity). Java doesn't have monkey-patching so there is no need for the COW handling on core classes (in Java terms for classes loaded by the bootstrap classloader). `ClassLoader` wouldn't be a good name for Ruby though, because `require` loads files/features, not classes. Maybe `FileLoader` or `FeatureLoader` (which BTW are names already used internally exactly for this stuff in TruffleRuby and also in Rubinius IIRC). ko1 (Koichi Sasada) wrote in #note-17:
RootNamespace
I think this is good as `RootNamespace.new` expresses clearly and fairly faithfully what the feature does. IMO it's best to avoid any term related to isolation or security for this feature since there is little isolation in this feature: the only isolation is separate top-level constant namespaces, separate global variables, and the lazy copy of core classes. But different "namespaces" can refer to each other and even mutate each other, hence no isolation. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113750 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). My idea that popped up recently is, "Ruby Box", referenced as `Ruby::Box`. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113865 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). Sounds great @tagomoris. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113866 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by matheusrich (Matheus Richard). Another reason why I think `Ruby::Context` is good is because it's a good metaphor. Like a human language, a sentence can be interpreted differently depending on the context it's spoken. That analogy matches this feature, as it *makes Ruby code (potentially) be interpreted differently depending on the context*. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-114192 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
Issue #21385 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). I accept `Ruby::Box`. I saw the proposal for `Ruby::Context` but this namespace things are a bit different from the `context`. Matz. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-114312 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
participants (16)
-
baweaver (Brandon Weaver) -
byroot (Jean Boussier)
-
cheba (Alexander Mankuta)
-
Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme)
-
duerst
-
Eregon (Benoit Daloze)
-
fxn (Xavier Noria)
-
hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)
-
ioquatix (Samuel Williams)
-
ko1 (Koichi Sasada)
-
masterleep2 (Bill Lipa)
-
matheusrich (Matheus Richard)
-
matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
-
nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada)
-
opswole (Christopher Fagg)
-
tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori)