On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 03:05:55PM +0100, Matt S Trout wrote: > I don't tend to register my own modules these days; I regard the registration > process more as a useful feedback cycle on naming than anything else.
I thought the main difference was that registered modules are more discoverable on CPAN i.e. end up in http://search.cpan.org/modlist/Data_and_Data_Types/Data rather than just the search results. Maybe I missed the point? > Maybe Data::ByPath::RW or something? The read/write-ness is something people > are going to care about. > > > To be honest, after all these examples nothing is jumping at me and so I > > still prefer Data::PathSimple. > > You're welcome to upload it under that name without registration, you know. > > I'm also starting to think that the reasons why many ::Simple modules are > actively hated by experienced perl programmers may not apply from your > point of view - or more accurately, that I'll probably hate your module for > the same reasons ... but that the people who won't will search for ::Simple > modules for a different set of reasons. Data::ByPath::RW just doesn't have the same ring to me. I think I'm going to settle with Data::PathSimple because it works with my brain. Ofcourse it depends on what you're doing, but I don't get the hate for ::Simple modules. I would rather be using XML::Simple rather than XML::Parser and XML::SAX. I would rather use Filter::Simple rather than Filter::Util::Call. > So the name might be ok after all. I guess in the end the name really doesn't matter, it's what the code does that's priority. I just thought that by using Data::PathSimple, people would actually find it and use it. Alfie -- Alfie John http://h4c.kr
