Just because the library is named GnomeVFS doesn't mean it have to have that name on CPAN does it? Doesn't VFS::Gnome give enough credit to the underlying library? Why do we need to to say the obscure acronym ;) twice in 15 characters, taking up 6!
I don't really mind between VFS:: and FileSys::Virtual, if you are really planning on writing
an abstract VFS.pm that is designed to work with multiple implmentations I am think VFS should be a go. However I don't think VFS::GnomeVFS should be a go.
VFS::GnomeVFS
VFS::ApacheVFS
VFS::DarwinVFS
VFS::LinuxVFS
Doesn't read well at all.
Regards Arthur
On onsdag, nov 6, 2002, at 13:12 Europe/Stockholm, Piers Harding wrote:
Granted - GnomeVFS is possibly a bit repetitious, but in this case GnomeVFS is the name of the Gnome library that is being used as a VFS driver. However, Filsys::Virtual is excessively verbose, as there is allready a degree of acceptance in the Open Source community at large of the meaning of the VFS acronym being Virtual File System - hence GnomeVFS ( not to mention other projects such as Apache and the VFS component, Linux etc. ).consider this as a potential usage model: VFS using core Perl functions for the driver might be called like this - use VFS; If a user wanted to use the functions capable of a certain driver they could address it like this - use VFS GnomeVFS; or use VFS qw(GnomeVFS); or use VFS q/:gnomevfs/; The point being that the VFS core can be used in limited situatiions, and additional drivers, pulled in as required, even at run time. This lends it's self to a node-leaf relationship with - VFS.pm VFS/LWP.pm <--- VFS functions based on LWP VFS/GnomeVFS.pm VFS/SomeOtherLib.pm .. Cheers.
