On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 04:28:08PM +0000, Graham Barr wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 01:54:48PM +0100, Jörg Ziefle wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:21:44PM +0000, Tim Bunce wrote: > > > Given what I've said above and what I understand of your module it > > > seems like Lingua:: would be the best category to use. > > > > > > So I'd suggest something like Lingua::LEOTranslate, or perhaps a > > > Lingua::Translate::LEO module that offers both a minimal plugin > > > to Lingua::Translate and also a more full-features API for applications > > > that "use Lingua::Translate::LEO;" directly. > > > > Lingua::Translate::LEO seems fine for me. > > Maybe you could work with the author of Lingua::Translate to make it > a common API to multiple backends.
What about the following: * Due to the lack of time, I submit my module as Lingua::Translate::LEO (sans the Lingua::Translate backend). * When a time slice becomes available, I'll write Lingua::Translate::Backend::LEO. As the name says, this would be a backend for Lingua::Translate (which will probably need changes or even a redesign). * In the future, translation modules could (preferably) choose to be a backend for Lingua::Translate and go into the Lingua::Translate::Backend::* namespace. Or they could want or need a different API and go into the Lingua::Translate::* namespace. Joerg
