Sat, 17 May 86 02:33:48 PDT
> Right. What happens if you pick a name for your private
> protocol that happens to be exactly the same as the name someone else
> picked for their private protocol? ...
> Now, if you preface all your private services with some
> personal string, e.g. 'SYMBOLICS-'...
Speaking from personal experience, this can work pretty well. Take a look
at Usenet (I know, many of you would rather not!): we're limited to roughly
a seven-character name space, but we have few collisions. By and large,
people follow prefix-based naming conventions simply because it makes sense.
Most of the collisions we do have are cases where somebody was being "clever"
and naming sites after, say, Tolkien characters, and somebody else had the
same cutesy idea. I find it striking, actually, that prefix-based naming
has worked out so well in such a cramped name space on such an anarchic
network. It should do nicely for port numbering, if the technical problems
can be sorted out.
One suggestion: pick a specific convention for separating prefix and the
rest of the name. One way in which our tight name space is a real pain
is that it discourages spending a character position on a delimiter.
We're bound to have trouble with that some day. (Some would say we do
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:07 GMT