On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 08:58:07AM -0700, Erick Calder wrote: > > having both a Proc::PID_File module and a Proc::PID::File > > module doesn't help people. > > sorry, I didn't explain myself correctly. there will not be 2 modules, only > one, reclassified, and Steven has asked me to maintain it.
Okay. > > There's no need for the extra level of name here > > the space Proc::PID should actually become a family of which File is only a > member, there is other PID related functionality that could use that space > like Proc::PID::Of I still don't think it's worth an extra level. PID_File and PID_whatever etc seems just fine to me. There won't be that many of them. Tim. > - e > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Bunce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 4:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Module submission Proc::PID::File > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:38:36AM +0200, Perl Authors Upload Server wrote: > > > > The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List: > > > > modid: Proc::PID::File > > DSLIP: Rdphp > > description: check whether a process is already runnning > > userid: ECALDER (Erick Calder) > > chapterid: 4 (Operating_System_Interfaces) > > communities: > > > > similar: > > Proc::PID_File - reclassifying > > > > rationale: > > > > I've talked to the developer of Proc::PID_File and he has asked me > > to maintain and reclassify his Proc::PID_File as Proc::PID::File > > which makes more sense. > > There's no need for the extra level of name here and having both a > Proc::PID_File module and a Proc::PID::File module doesn't help people. > > Whatever the differences in functionality are between the two modules > should be expressed somehow in the names. The suggested change doesn't. > > Tim. >
