Question Package naming

https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/cus-naming.html

Is the "com." limitation correct and necessary? how about other TLD: org.<org-name>, net.<org-name>. One benefit of the reverse domain name notation is that a namespace can be globally unique to its registered owner: com.something and net.something are different scopes, and it's fine.

Since Unity 2020.2.x beta, the inspector of package.json hides the full package name and breaks it into name and organization name. The organization name hides the TLD, implies the "com.". If you have a package that starts with "net.something" it will only show something. It's could be misleading.



How about
- clarifying the documentation that packages with other TLDs are okay.
- the organization name field should always show the TLD prefix. "com.something" instead of "something".

Refs,
https://github.com/openupm/openupm/issues/1521#issuecomment-744080120

 

For Unity people looking at this,

I already reported the TLD missing as
Case 1282696, "[PackageManifestImporter] Package name is incorrectly read from package.json"
and it was determined that hiding crucial information is for some reason "by design", maybe merely a "usability problem".

I disagree but that's what QA said. I believe it's important that the UI does show correct information...

 

Howdy folks, apologies for the radio silence. Been back and forth with the team about this for a while.

We do agree with what you're saying Favo-Yang. In the inspector, we do want to display the full package name (<domain>.<organization name>.<name>). We also agree that the documentation needs to be updated to specify that the domain name does not need to be 'com.'.

Regarding your response Felix, we did actually create a task to address it despite the response from Incoming QA. The Package Manager team have put some comments on the internal Jira task that we want to ensure the documentation is updated as well.

The task is currently in the teams backlog but we agree that we need to address this issue.

Sorry again for the delay.

 

Thank you for the update.

 

Thank you @UnityMaru .

A related case is Case 1289877 where other crucial information (author) is hidden for no apparent reason, totally messing with the sorting in PackMan.

I talked to Eric about it but just noticed that the case has been closed without any notice or explanation. I shared my recommended solution with the PackMan team (showing source tags for packages). Would be great if you could follow up on this as well. Thanks!

 

Seems like the case was closed as Boris M was in discussions with you about the case and would be reopened if needed. Has there been radio silence since?

 

The package author is still hidden all the way up to latest 2021.2.
But I think Boris still has this on his to-do-list Thanks for following up!