On May 17, 2007, at 12:06 PM, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
One of the oldest ideas for namespace decisions was that when a family
of modules constitutes something you can perceive as a framework, then
any top level namespace is ok. It makes no sense when everybody just
grabs a toplevel namespace with a cute name but when you come with a
bag of modules, you deserve one.
The whole idea of levels of namespace has pretty much been outdated
anyway. Why is Nike::Foo any better or worse than App::Nike::Foo?
Nobody actually uses this hierarchy. There's not some outline. We
don't traverse a strict tree.
Does it matter that WWW::Mechanize isn't LWP::Mechanize? Shouldn't
similar things be named in the same TLNS?
Why isn't RT::* App::RT::*? Or WWW::RT::*?
What's with all these ad hoc appending of "x", like DBIx and RTx?
Maybe the componenty parts should be Appx::* ?
There's no hierarchy. There just isn't.
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
