2 ms·

dot-com domain squatting is the OG name squatting. Everything under dot-com is taken. Even for new TLD names there is a bidding process. Domains are not that g

• thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > Domains are not that great for project identifiers. I tend to agree. But the fact remains that you don't see fights over namespacing in Java even though everyone uses the same top-level space. I can't see how the claim "you still have the squatting problem of the top-level names. It's just now a fight over who owns `oracle/*`" holds any water. > Domain ownership is not permanent, but project identifiers should be. Package names aren't actually linked to domain ownership. There's nothing stopping me from releasing software under com.oracle.
  • swsieber 5y ago
    > It's less difficult (though still far from easy) to handle name squatting on organization/corporate names as qualifiers for packages than to try and prevent name squatting on package names. So we're back to fighting who owns "com.oracle"? It seems like no matter the approach taken to validating namespace ownership there's some drawback.
    • thaumasiotes 5y ago
      No. There is no fighting over who owns com.oracle. There's nothing stopping you from releasing software in the com.oracle namespace, but when you do, either you are Oracle or you are falsely claiming to be Oracle. Avoiding accidental collisions just isn't the same problem as validating a potentially fraudulent claim of identity. Namespacing solves the first problem; it's not intended to address the second, and doesn't.
• paulryanrogers 5y ago
  IIRC, Microsoft apps can use a UUID. Which seems clever and future proof, so long its v4.