Front page | perl.modules |
Postings from May 2008
brian d foy schrieb: > In article <200805041307.m44D7DD7004566@pause.perl.org>, Perl Authors > Upload Server <upload@pause.perl.org> wrote: > >> The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List: >> >> modid: Web::DBI >> DSLIP: cdpOp >> description: A web interface to DBI, finally. >> userid: XSAWYERX (Sawyer X) >> chapterid: 15 (World_Wide_Web_HTML_HTTP_CGI) >> communities: > > Steffen steered you toward some much better names: > > http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/modules/2008-05/msg00024.html > > The web namespace is usually used to connect to existing things on the > web, so I don't see how your application fits there. Oops. Sawyer X dropped modules@ from the CC list. Short recap: We discussed this further. Turns out, some of my initial ideas weren't so good. The existing DBIx::HTML::* modules are unrelated, so that area's out. I wouldn't have included "HTML" in the module name anyway. DBIx::Web and DBIx::Admin exist, so Sawyer X considered adding a third DBIx::WebAdmin confusing. I tend to agree. That only left my suggestion to choose a catchy *name*, potentially unrelated to the module purpose (such as Rosetta, etc.). I don't think there's a good place to put web applications right now. App:: doesn't really seem right for web apps. Most apps are under their respective web framework top level namespace such as Catalyst. That also seems wrong. Web:: isn't really crowded compared to WWW:: or WebService::. So I thought it would be okay to use that top level namespace. Sorry if this is off. Cheers, SteffenThread Previous | Thread Next