On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 01:22:53PM -0500, _brian_d_foy wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Veltzer ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > First Meta is indeed the name of the consulting company that I run but the > > name Meta is exactly right for what I need. I wanted a name without any > > connection to anything that people already know (like DB, XML, Development > > etc..). because Meta is a project to accomplish many tasks in an integrated > > mannger. The name fits right on. > > i don't see how "Meta" is better than anything else, especially since > "meta" already has special meaning in this domain (as in meta-data) and > should be available for general use (rather than your specific one). > > > If anyone has problems with my name space I will change it. Do you have > > concrete problems with the name space NOW ?!? > > the big problem is the PAUSE won't let anyone else use it. i don't > see a problem with that right now though. > > other than that, namespaces like Meta::Archive::Tar seem misleading. > it's not a "meta" class---indeed, it's just the opposite, a derived > class.
I agree. Meta is a name with well established meanings and so isn't a good choice for a new 'framework' of modules. > i'd rather see you contribute to the projects already out there than > create an entirely new thing. Likewise. But if Mark is set on this path then we need to help him avoid tripping up or distracting others with this work. Mark, please choose a new top level name for your framework. You can see from the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archives that we prefer frameworks to have catchy/funky 'brand names' that are not simple common words. Using two words is also a good idea. Given the scale of your project perhaps one of them should be Mega :) Tim.
