On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 02:22:53PM -0400, Christopher Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Smylers wrote:
> >Chris Dolan writes:
> >>Assuming it is based on DBI at its core, your module would fit better
> >>in the DBI extension area. I think DBIx::Backup::MySQL would be good,
> >>as it would leave room for expansions to databases other than ::MySQL.
> >
> >I think the opposite -- that DBIx:: should be for things that are
> >generally usable with DBI, where the "I" is independent. Things such as
> >backing up tend not to be database-independent.
>
> I agree with Chris much more than Smylers here, but if we go along with
> Smylers perspective for a minute then we need /some/ hierarchy for
> "database-related things that aren't avertising they're using DBI for some
> reason".
Do we? It's not as if we find modules by walking down a namespace tree.
Typically it's a keyword search.
> The more I think about it DBIx would seem to be the winning
> place for this sort of thing.
I understood 'DBIx' to be "DBI extensions", which is not what this is.
Mark
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mark Stosberg Principal Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Summersault, LLC
765-939-9301 ext 202 database driven websites
. . . . . http://www.summersault.com/ . . . . . . . .
