[Mono-list] Binaries naming

Asier Llano Palacios asierllano@infonegocio.com
Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:49:01 +0200 

Those things are considered easily solvable by selecting to use one or the
other. For example:

A per-distribution configuration file called "/etc/dotnet.conf" could be
created, where you can choose your default framework. With content like this
(and maybe any other per-distribution option):

defaultframework=mono     # (or pnet)

So an ilasm script (or any other thing) could choose one framework or the
other. Those are things that packagers use to do. 
What they won't do is renaming an executable because every user will be
looking for the original name.

That sort of things is what packagers are for.

But, what still makes me unhappy (OK, my life does not depend on it) is the
consistent naming of the tools of the framework. If a pattern is chosen (for
the generality of the tools) the learning would be easy. (I mean, even if
the name of 'ilasm' would be an exception). Now, there are a lot of tools,
and there will be more and more, so a consistent way of naming most of them
make things easier.

The names are really easy for us, because we are very used to them. But,
What would a newbie think about it?

Just, a thought.

Asier


> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
> admin@lists.ximian.com] En nombre de Todd Berman
> Enviado el: martes, 14 de octubre de 2003 19:31
> Para: 'Asier Llano Palacios'; 'Daniel Morgan'; 'Pavlica, Nick'
> CC: 'Mono List'
> Asunto: RE: [Mono-list] Binaries naming
> 
> Which wouldn't remove the pnet mono block...
> 
> --Todd
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
> > admin@lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Asier Llano Palacios
> > Sent: October 14, 2003 1:19 PM
> > To: 'Daniel Morgan'; 'Pavlica, Nick'
> > Cc: 'Mono List'
> > Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Binaries naming
> >
> > But they would have hardcoded the "ilasm.exe".
> > So a simlink from "ilasm" or "ilasm.exe" to milasm could also work.
> >
> > Asier
> >
> > > -----Mensaje original-----
> > > De: mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-list-
> > > admin@lists.ximian.com] En nombre de Daniel Morgan
> > > Enviado el: martes, 14 de octubre de 2003 19:05
> > > Para: Pavlica, Nick; Asier Llano Palacios
> > > CC: Mono List
> > > Asunto: RE: [Mono-list] Binaries naming
> > >
> > > For milasm, it would not work because there are some compilers that
> have
> > > ilasm hard-coded.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com
> > > [mailto:mono-list-admin@lists.ximian.com]On Behalf Of Pavlica, Nick
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:53 PM
> > > To: Asier Llano Palacios
> > > Cc: Mono List
> > > Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Binaries naming
> > >
> > >
> > > I like this suggestion!  This naming consistency would have
> definitely
> > > made my first experience with Mono better because it would have
> helped
> > > reduce the learning curve.  And in my opinion, any time you can
> build in
> > > consistency it's a good thing.  Just look at some of the problems
> with
> > > swing/awt :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 05:12, Asier Llano Palacios wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I've bin thinking about the names of the executables and found the
> > > following
> > > > two cosmetic problems.
> > > >
> > > > a) Unconsistent naming, some of the including an 'm' at the
> beginning,
> > > some
> > > > of them 'mono' and some of them nothing at all.
> > > > 	mcs: for the compiler
> > > > 	mono: for the jit
> > > > 	mint: for the interpreter
> > > > 	ilasm: for the assembler
> > > > 	monodis: for the disassembler
> > > > 	monodoc: for the documentation
> > > > 	....
> > > >
> > > > b) Distributions make pnet and mono block each other just because
> of
> > > sharing
> > > > the name of 'ilasm'. Although I'm not a fan of pnet it is a pity
> to
> > > block
> > > > each other for sharing just the name of one executable.
> > > >
> > > > c) Windows people ask for tools that already exist, because they
> don't
> > > know
> > > > the mono's name of the same tool. (I was thinking about a mail
> asking
> > > for
> > > > the disassembler).
> > > >
> > > > I know that it would be a little change in source, but a big
> change in
> > > the
> > > > documentation, in the working of the people and packaging. But, I
> was
> > > > thinking that if the change is proposed, the sooner, the better.
> > > > (Once Mono 1.0 is released, it is clearly too late).
> > > >
> > > > Just I was thinking that it would be better if for Mono 1.0 the
> > > executables
> > > > would be called:
> > > > 	mcsc: for the compiler
> > > > 	mjit: for the jit
> > > > 	mint: for the interpreter
> > > > 	milasm: for the assembler
> > > > 	mdoc: for the documentation
> > > > 	....
> > > >
> > > > I think it would make everything more consistent and easier for
> people
> > > to
> > > > start working with mono.
> > > > Don't you think it would look as a more organized framework?
> > > >
> > > > I know it would be a hard job, so don't blame me just for
> thinking.
> > I'm
> > > open
> > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > Asier Llano
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list