RE: framework question

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Joel Cochran
> 
> Ouch... at least mine is free :-)

<laughing>  Joel, that was a big faux pas on my part, I apologize.  You
do indeed have a fine library of procedures, and they demonstrate the
problem: by not having some sort of namespace, your modules could
conceivably collide with someone else's.

One way you could have avoided this by putting a prefix on all of your
methods as I mentioned in my previous post to Aaron.  Now, the big issue
that comes into play there is when you want to be able to switch between
multiple versions of the same class name within different packages.
Luckily that's rarely an issue for me, but it's really not that much
prettier with Java; it means you either have to qualify the class
completely or use an import statement.

So the BIG rub is not the naming, or the namespace, but the import
capabilities - the way that you default the namespace.  Basically the
idea is being able to overload the class name with the import statement.
Is that a big issue?  I don't know.

Joe