Re: Module naming and identification

On Apr 14, 2009, at 8:22 AM, zooko wrote:
> Only the immutable kind suffer from the "over-specification" problem
> that Lex Spoon described -- that specifying that you require a
> specific version of your dependency is too tight, and you really want
> to specify things like "Any version of foomodule greater than or
> equal to 1.0.2 and less than 2.0".  The mutable kind of self-
> authenticating identifier are just as flexible as filenames are.


I agree.  Is there a good name for "reference to a *static*  
bitstream"?  That one seems quite useful for module refs in a binary  
distribution.

In source code, it seems like any kind of strong reference would be  
too specific.  You usually want the local repository to be able to  
choose what the identifier "com/foosrus/foomodule" actually refers to,  
at which points it's not really a strong reference.

Granted, there are modules that really are maintained and updated by  
some other group completely out of your direct control.  In a word,  
plugins.  For references to plugins, a strong reference to a dynamic  
bitstream looks like what you'd want.

Lex