On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 10:46:09AM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote: > Tim Bunce said: > > Frameworks of multiple closely related modules are encouraged to > > have a catchy 'brand name' at the top level rather than fit into > > an existing namespace. e.g., Alzabo and Tangram. > > Tim. > > Thanks, I appreciate the "encouragement"! > > (FYI, I had previously avoided making a new top level on > purpose since the CPAN module guidelines said it was preferable to fit > into an existing top level if possible, and only make a new one if there > were no existing ones that were appropriate. And I had thought it would > be presumptuous of me to assume my work was important enough to deserve > its own top level, as if that was highly sought-after real-estate like > top level internet domain names.)
(The "catchy 'brand name'" of a 'framework' should ideally not be very meaningful out of context - so the "value" of the real-estate is less.) > On the other hand, I don't really think that my distribution should be > branded; despite anything I may have written, what I am doing is meant to > be a generic way of talking to databases without knowing any SQL, so > applications are portable, but do this more completely than existing > abstraction solutions do. It is not meant to be anything huge and > complicated like an OORDBMS emulation on top of a non-object RDBMS. Post some representative examples. (Your description was light on detail.) Tim.
