Front page | perl.module-authors |
Postings from December 2005
Re: New module: FLV file parsing
From: Chris Dolan
December 2, 2005 14:02
Re: New module: FLV file parsing
Message ID: 7A181EE4-81C3-425D-B3C6-6B3AB350D3BF@clotho.com
So, I already published it as FLV::Info, but this discussion has
convinced me that FileFormat::FLV is the best option. I may use that
name for v0.02. My only hesitation is that nobody else seems to be
using that top-level namespace at this time.
The FF:: namespace is a terrible idea, in my opinion. I expect that
it will be meaningless to the majority of module searchers. The
argument that search makes names irrelevant is just silly. If that
were true, the practice of bouncing name ideas off this email list
would cease, and I'd just name it FLV.pm.
As for the Flash:: namespace, I don't think that's best. While FLV
is primarily used in the Macromedia Flash Player, it is not Flash but
is a standalone video format. That would be like naming a CSS
parsing module HTML::CSS::Parser, when CSS clearly has utility beyond
just HTML, despite its dominant usage.
On Dec 2, 2005, at 8:43 PM, Smylers wrote:
> Eric Wilhelm writes:
>> # from David Nicol
>> # on Wednesday 30 November 2005 02:18 pm:
>>> isn't there a multimedia name space? ame spaces per-product that is
>>> being supported make sense --- Flash::parseFLV perhaps?
>> What else will appear in the Flash:: namespace?
> It doesn't matter if nothing else appears there -- the module would
> still have a name that's readily understandable.
>> What all file format parsers and dumpers have in common is that they
>> deal with File Formats.
> Yes, but that isn't more relevant than the particular file format each
> deals with.
> For example, I'd be much more likely to first think that I'd be
> with Flash files, and then realize that I need to parse them, than to
> start by thinking that I'm working with files that have a format, and
> only then that the format is Flash.
>> In a lot of cases, the only module that is going to be created is for
>> that format.
> And that causes what harm?
>> I'm working on CAD::DXF for now,
> "Cad" is a well-known acronym. I have no use for anything cad-related
> in my life at the moment, so I know that I can safely ignore that
> module. But as it happens, referring to DXF in the context of cad is
> enough to prompt me into recollecting that .dxf is an AutoCad file
>> but would rather name it FF::DXF,
> Whereas if I saw that I wouldn't know what either set of letters mean;
> "DXF" is sufficiently meaningful in my brain to make me think of
> without any context. And "FF" could be one of many things: recently
> I've seen it used to abbreviate "Firefox" in quite a few places; if
> just been reading some music (or trying to solve a crossword) I might
> think of it meaning "very loud".
>> similarly with FF::SVG, FF::XAR, FF::PDF, etc.
> What does that achieve? Putting all the cad-related modules makes
> sense to me, and similarly for other things.
>> FF::FLV sounds best to me.
> I wouldn't have a clue what that means. I hadn't heard of FLV before
> this thread, and I wouldn't guess "FF" without this thread either.
> With Flash::FLV I still wouldn't know what "FLV" stands for, but I'd
> have a clue as to its context -- enough of a clue to know whether I'm
> interested in investigating the module further if it I see it in the
> 'recent uploads' list.
> May God bless us with enough foolishness to believe that we can make a
> difference in this world, so that we can do what others claim
> cannot be done.
Chris Dolan, Software Developer, Clotho Advanced Media Inc.
608-294-7900, fax 294-7025, 1435 E Main St, Madison WI 53703
Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. - Creators of MediaLandscape Software
(http://www.media-landscape.com/) and partners in the revolutionary
Croquet project (http://www.opencroquet.org/)