On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:49:57AM -0700, Derek Cline wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> I understand your comments regarding putting Monkeywrench in the Test
> namespace, however, I believe CGI is probably not the best name for
> it, especially since the group I work with doesn't write many cgi's,
> we mostly write handlers with mod_perl. I admit that Monkeywrench was
> originally meant to be just an HTTP testing app, but the code has
> grown to be generic enough to have Monkeywrench become a testing app
> for everything from LDAP to databases. And while I understand that
> Monkeywrench really doesn't explain what it does, I would hate to
> lock it into a specific pigeonhole like CGI or HTTP.
I understand your relucance against putting it until CGI if it
also works under mod_perl. From your description, it sounds like
it requires a web-based environment. If this is the case, then I
would recommend HTTP::Something or HTML::Something. Otherwise,
Test::Something sounds good to me.
> Also keep in mind that many modules have names which don't
> specifically say what they are, ie Mason, Tangram, etc...
That would be HTML::Mason and NobodyEverAskedKurt::Tangram? :^)
> At this point I believe the best namespace for Monkeywrench would be
> Test::Monkeywrench. Please let me know what you think.
I will only provide my opinion, which is that an accurately descriptive
name is more likely to produce trial users. If you're really wed to
Monkeywrench, then go for it, but I, for one, would not be likely to find
it on CPAN by using the CPAN shell, which is how I generally poke around
for a module to perform any random function.
Peace,
* Kurt Starsinic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---------- Senior Network Engineer *
| `The future masters of technology will have to be lighthearted and |
| intelligent. The machine easily masters the grim and the dumb.' |
| -- Marshall McLuhan |
