I agree that this would make sense, and ties in well with how things are done now and the naming suggestions. Renaming the module in that way would also help reduce having 'App::Core' in front of every single piece of the system.
I propose to use the name 'Ginger' as the new root namespace to use. There is still a core component to it, but that is one piece of it, and is actually a core to it. The other components will be named under 'Ginger' to represent their purposes.
I would be open to other names if people could suggest some. If a branding name is to be chosen, I would like it to be something somewhat unique that does not coincide with other popular technology components or concepts that would mislead people as to what it is. I believe 'Ginger' is distinct and unusual enough that it will not lead people to think of it as anything other than what it is.
As for why I would choose that name; my wife is Japanese and I happen to just be drinking ginger tea 10 minutes ago. ( seems as good as any reason to me when a random non-descriptive word must be chosen )
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Module submission Framework::Core
From: Matt S Trout <m...@shadowcat.co.uk>
Date: Wed, May 01, 2013 1:48 pm
To: David Helkowski <codech...@cpan.org>
Cc: modules@perl.org, brian d foy <brian.d....@gmail.com>
This module is clearly going to sprawl over time, so I would prefer you
gave it a top-level name in the same way e.g. Catalyst, Mojolicious have
done.
Framework:: isn't appropriate since 'Core' would suggest some sort of
privileged position within that namespace.
This is why the whole branded-top-level thing came about; there's just no
other way of doing it that doesn't cause confusion.
--
Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue
http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/
Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst
commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
