In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard F. Rebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am abstracting the whole interface to the database in an attempt to > keep from needing SQL littered all over your code and to make it > easier to change columns etc without having to re-code everything, > especially when it comes to strong data-typing. eg changing a int(4) > to an int(6) > DBI::OO::Abstract ?? > OO::DBI ?? i don't think OO needs to be part of the name. it sounds like you may want to put it in DBIx (if you use DBI, and why aren't you if not!). now i see what you mean by "abstract", i think. this is sort of like the modules that automatically add getter and setter methods to classes (a really cool feature built into Ruby, by the way). the best thing you could do is associate, in naming scheme, your module with another module that does the same thing in another domain. people will be used to the name and what it means already. some things that may be similar: Class::MakeMethods Class::Accessor Class::MethodMapper -- brian d foy (one of many PAUSE admins), http://pause.perl.org
