> Before I upload the code (which is already written, for all methods MetaCPAN > allows, and more) to CPAN and Github, I just wanted to know that taking a > top-level namespace here makes sense and get any input on it. Here are some > notes: > 1. It does not use Mechanize, LWP, or anything for which the WWW:: namespace > would make sense.
naming something after its implementation details doesn't make sense. Including the name of a framework in the name of a plugin makes sense, but that's different. > 2. Tiny and concise, as to be an official completely workable API > implementation (currently using Mouse - or rather, Any::Moose - and > HTTP::Tiny). > 3. I prefer not to bury this inside a low namespace > (WebService::PerlRelated::MetaCPAN::API::Implementation::Sawyer). > 4. I've spoken to Olaf Alders from MetaCPAN and he assured me they have no > problem with the name, and that they would use it themselves once it's out. how about MetaCPAN::API since that's what it provides? So MetaCPAN::FAQ and MetaCPAN::Server can be at the same level. But that's redundant isn't it; if one wants to "use MetaCPAN" one is going to need to use the API -- including ::API may be toxic clarity.
