On Aug 13, Mark Overmeer wrote:
> * Kurt Starsinic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030813 15:30]:
> > On Aug 13, Perl Authors Upload Server wrote:
> > > The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List:
> > >
> > > modid: Mail::Box::Procmail
> > > Mail::Box::Procmail is a set of scripts and some classes which
> > > create procmail-like facilities. I already many modules in the
> > > Mail::Box::* namespace, but this one would be released as separate
> > > distribution.
> > >
> > > The main difference with the usual procmail implementations is that
> > > you do not need to create a cryptic configuration file with its own
> > > syntax (and therefore limitations), but you simply extend your own
> > > program based on Mail::Box and User::Identity.
> >
> > I don't think it's a good idea to write something that works
> > somewhat similarly to procmail, and calling it Mail::Box::Procmail.
> > Maybe Mail::Box::Process?
>
> "Procmail" as part of the name is to indicate the very comparible
> application. I have plans to support procmailrc files as well, probably
> using Mail::Procmailrc. Then it simply is procmail++
>
> By using this name, I hope to attract more people into reading where this
> module is all about.
>
> > Also, does this operate on a mailbox (very much unlike procmail),
> > or on incoming messages? If the latter, then ::Box probably doesn't
> > belong in the name.
>
> There is already a Mail::Procmail (from Johan Vromans) which is a
> procmail implementation as usual. Besides, the "Mail::Box" in the
> name is to explicitly state that it uses the Mail::Box library.
That's exactly what you don't want to do (IMHO). The module name
should indicate the functionality, not the implementation. As a
potential user, why should I care that your module uses Mail::Box?
If you re-implemented the internals in a future release, would you
rename the module? As a user, should I care?
- Kurt
