Hello Brian, Well, I see your point I guess.
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 ?? DBI::OO::FrameWork ?? DBI::OO::Interface ?? DBI::OO::DB ?? OO::DBI ?? OO::DBI::Interface ?? This code has been in production use for a large system (3.2 million active subscribers 20 million application requests per day) for some time, it's stable and quite useful. There are 30 or 40 mod_perl applications that make use of the classes. Anyways, my point being that this naming thing is not all that important to me, I just would like to publish the work as I believe it could be very helpful to many and it might encourage others to contribute. What would you call this? Your input is appreciated! Richard. On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:49:27 -0500 _brian_d_foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard F. Rebel ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Such as ^MySQL::Abstract or ^Oracle? > > > > Perhaps the modules belong under ^Persistence? It's an oo persistence framework, >or a database application framework. > > Persistence isn't good either. > > you don't' want to name the top-level after a specific product. > you want to be as general as possible, such as "DB" or "DBIx", > since you deal with databases. > > After the top level, you get more specific. "DBIx::Abstract" still > doesn't mean anything. Abstract of what? The next part of the > name deals with what you do with databases. > > and so on... :) > > -- > brian d foy (one of many PAUSE admins), http://pause.perl.org >
