>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:48:04 -0400, "Luis E. Muņoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I'm not sure, but I could imagine somewhere in the NetPacket or
>> Network hierarchie or below the Net::DNS there might be a place to
>> consider settling.
> The modules I referred to deal specifically with representations of
> IP addresses. They're protocol independent.
> Under 'Net' there is essentially stuff related to networking and
> actual implementations (protocols, clients, servers, tools, etc).
> While logically the modules I wrote about could fit in something
> like 'Net::IP', I'm not sure if this approach would make sense in
> the long run.
> On the other hand, something like 'Net::Address::IP' might make
> more sense. The Tie interface could then be Tie::Net::Address::IP
> so it could all boil down to
> IP::Address --> Net::Address::IP
> Tie::IP::Address --> Tie::Net::Address::IP
> Net::Subnet::Count --> Net::Address::IP::Count
> Please let me know what you think about this one, as I feel this
> makes more sense.
It indeed looks much more intuitive than before. Just one thing,
there's a long standing tradition to discourage
extremely::deep::nesting::namespaces. E.g. one could shorten
Net::Address to NetAddr. No matter how ugly it looks, it seems
understandable and less to type. Leading to
IP::Address --> NetAddr::IP
Tie::IP::Address --> Tie::NetAddr::IP
Net::Subnet::Count --> NetAddr::IP::Count
Other opinions welcome,
--
andreas
