On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 07:26:36PM -0800, David Muir Sharnoff wrote: > * It's not a question of sound. If the primary purpose of the module is to > * emulate the behaviour of rdist then the name should reflect that. If it's > * just to read rdist files then the name should reflect that. > * > * In this case perhaps it could be two modules. > * > * But an Emulate::* namespace doesn't appeal much. Many modules emulate > * something. > * > * Perhaps Filesys::Rdist. > > It does do both, but I see little point in making it two > modules.
Yeah, I meant to add some mumbling about 'or just have the description mention parsing' as a hint. > I don't think it fits with Filesys:: as the modules that are > there all deal with filesystems rather then the files in a > filesystem. Ah yes, quite right. > I would consider File::Rdist, but the module never actually uses > rdist. Rather the purpose is to achieve the same ends using rsync. > > File::Rdist2Rsync? > > Rdist::Rsync? > > Rdist::Parse? > > I don't know. Maybe I should stick with ParseConfig::Rdist. But ParseConfig::Rdist doesn't describe the 'main' functionality. I think File::RdistByRsync fits best. Tim.
