On onsdag, nov 6, 2002, at 18:32 Europe/Stockholm, _brian_d_foy wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Arthur Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I think they are trying to establish a general File System API (VFS) that can be implmented by multiple VFS modules, akin to DBI.
On onsdag, nov 6, 2002, at 13:36 Europe/Stockholm, Piers Harding wrote:
Please submit new requests for VFS and VFS::Gnome and I will accept them in a couple of days barring any latecomer has some really good comments.why not make the top-level FileSys? that would group all of the file system modules together.if you allow VFS at the top level, are we going to allow UFS, AFS, HFS, HFSplus, and so on? the only argument against FileSys:: has been that it requires more typing, but i think that is specious. the shortest name is not our primary concern---we want a name that is obvious, descriptive, and easy for the un-enlightened to understand. beyond a good name, we also have to consider the overall structure of CPAN. top level names should be reserved for general topics. i think VFS is too specific to be a top level name. even the other examples we discussed (VCS, DBI) are general groupings rather than specific instances of the topic. we should group filesystem modules together too. with VFS we're giving away the entire VFS space to a particular virtual filesystem, but when i checked google, i found several other types of VFS. i like either of these: FileSys::GnomeVFS Gnome::VFS -- brian d foy (one of many PAUSE admins), http://pause.perl.org please send all messages back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And that is why VFS is being proposed. Having a top level FileSys.pm could happen however. One could also argue with success that we don't need a top level name and all that it takes is for these
module to share a generic API :-).
If we are not putting it in VFS:: then I agree that GnomeVFS is a good name, it is just the redundency of VFS::GnomeVFS that bothers me.
Arthur
