On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Few people are aware of that. "Cipher" would generally be taken to mean encryption
> (probably a database of ciphers in that case).
>
> There's no need for a framework name to be descriptive - so long
> as it doesn't imply something different.
>
> Of the sugge
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 10:42:55AM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
>
> ... ramble, ramble, ramble ...
>
> Anyway, here are some new ideas I thought of for a framework name:
>
> - Cipher
> - CipherDB
> - DBCipher
> - ResolveDB
> - DBResolver
> - InterpreDB
>
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, _brian_d_foy wrote:
> > - Cipher
> > - CipherDB
> > - DBCipher
>
> cipher has meaning in cryptography applications, so this name
> could be misleading
That is true. But the word also has a broader meaning which has nothing
to do with cryptography. In any event, I am willin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Cipher
> - CipherDB
> - DBCipher
cipher has meaning in cryptography applications, so this name
could be misleading
> - ResolveDB
> - DBResolver
> - InterpreDB
> - DBInterpreter
> - TranslateDB
> - DBTranslato
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Tim Bunce wrote:
> I think this needs a framework name.
> How about DuncanDB::* ?
> Tim.
P.S. A new list of my name suggestions is at the end of this letter.
Now that I have thought about it longer, I agree that your original
suggestion is along the right track for what I sho
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:18:29AM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > > 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 dat
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > 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 d
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 app
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> Name
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
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.
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 07:56:49AM +0100, Perl Authors Upload Server wrote:
>
> The following module was propose
The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List:
modid: DBIx::Portable
DSLIP: cdpOp
description: Framework for RDBMS-generic apps and schemas
userid: DUNCAND (Darren Duncan)
chapterid:7 (Database_Interfaces)
communities:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
12 matches
Mail list logo
