28/01/2002 14:14:04, Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:23:44AM +0100, Giuseppe Maxia wrote: >> 31/12/2001 13:17:41, Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >Cool. But DBIx::* probably isn't the best place. DBIx:::* is intended >> >more for modules that add a layer of functionality to the DBI API or >> >that are similarly _very_ closely tied to it. >> > >> >It's not really a good place for application-level functionality. >> > >> >We also have an SQL::* namespace but that's not a good fit either. >> > >> >Maybe we need to open up something like a DbSchema::* category for >> >modules related to the structure of database data. Then this one could >> >be DbSchema::Normalizer. >> > >> >Any opinions from the team? >> >> I was waiting for somebody more experienced to suggest something. However >> Since mobody is making any proposal, here is mine: >> >> DbSchema does not seem to be a bad choice, but what do we do with the existing >> DBIx::DBSchema? Isn't a possible source of confusion? > >Some, but not enough to worry about. DBIx::DBSchema should probably be renamed. > >> To avoid such conflicts, I would use a different name, perhaps within >> >> DBIx::Applications >> DBIx::Utils >> DBIx::Admin >> DBIx::Design >> >> since these tasks are related to the design and adminstration of a DB. >> >> Anyway, if there is no other choice, I would be glad to take DBSchema::Normalizer. > >Well, like I said above, DBIx::* is not a good place for high-level modules. >It's overcrowded already and I don't want to make that any worse. > >I'd still suggest DBSchema::Normalizer. > >Tim.
OK. Then, I'll name it DBSchema::Normalizer. Thanks. If nobody complains, I am going to upload my module by the end of the week. Best regards ____ ____ _____ _ _ / _ | \(____ ( \ / ) ( (_| | | | / ___ |) X ( \___ |_|_|_\_____(_/ \_) (_____|
