In article <001601c26695$2af11c80$6401a8c0@DEVELOPER>, Wayne Wylupski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Net is generally used for protocols rather than specific devices. > > similar modules exist in the Device::* namespace. > The LCDproc module implements a network protocol for clients to communicate > with the LCDproc server. This is something I do not see other modules in > the Device::* namespace do. sure they do. most of the Device modules provide a way to communicate with particular hardware. that's what LCDproc does too. the LCDproc decribes it as a "linux LCD device driver". that sounds a lot more like Device:: than Net:: :) > The objection I have to the Device::Module::LCDproc namespace is > practicality; that is, LCDproc itself has nested classes, and a programmer > working with a four-level deep name space may get irritated. I'd like to > make it easier for them. the programmer's shouldn't have to work with anything but Device::Monitor::LCDproc, or even Device::Monitor if you make an abstract interface. > I notice that in the hardware related modules here is an AudioCD::Mac; with > that naming scheme, LCD::LCDproc would seem to follow. May I suggest that > as a comprimise? It's two levels deep, and it falls in the Hardware > category. the module name should instantly tell the user what it is, from general to specific. it should leave room for other people to extend it or add similar modules. LCD is not descriptive enough for a top level category. LCD has many meanings, so it's a bad choice. Device::LCDproc could work, but i don't think it's the best name. -- brian d foy (one of many PAUSE admins), http://pause.perl.org
