Thanks all for your advices and your time. I've renamed my Moose based
MARC records package. It's now: MARC::Moose. The previous package is
still visible on CPAN but is scheduled to be deleted in a couple of days.
--
Frédéric
Frédéric-
I can't really comment on the namespace issue, but I do appreciate the fact
that this was written as a Moose module. That makes it much more traditionally
OO friendly, extensible, and if required, secure. When I used Marc::Record more
extensively, it was a favorite. I've worked on se
2010/11/11 Frédéric DEMIANS :
> Thanks all for your suggestions. I have to choose another name for sure.
> Marc::Moose seems to be a reasonable choice. But I'm very tempted by a
> shorter option: MarcX, MarcX::Record, MarcX::Parser, MarcX::Reader::Isis,
> etc. Any objection?
>
I can't think of a b
CPAN stores distributions under author subdirectories. But the module
namespace is done separately and reflects the function of the module.
In the case of the MARC:: namespace, I think Ed Summers is the only one
who has remained involved since the beginning (back in the 1990's). Had
we used names a
> butting in an interesting discussion ...
Thanks for joining the discussion.
> Would Org::Demians::MARC::Record ( or Tamil::MARC::Record ) be very
> wrong, unless you aim to provide the ultimate collection of MARC
> modules that would make all the others obsolete ?
Yes, I aim to... In the Java
Hello,
butting in an interesting discussion ...
Would Org::Demians::MARC::Record ( or Tamil::MARC::Record ) be very
wrong, unless you aim to provide the ultimate collection of MARC
modules that would make all the others obsolete ?
Moose is great and I love it, but it's not forever ... in a few y
I was going to express the same concern. Keeping everything under
MARC:: may also make it a tiny bit easier to find the existing
alternatives for, well, parsing MARC records. I would +1 MARC::Moose.
I understand this point. I don't like the idea of using 'Moose' in the
name of object using Mo
Gah. Replying to all this time instead of just Galen, as I did three
hours ago, for my $0.02...
2010/11/11 Galen Charlton :
> Hi,
>
> 2010/11/11 Frédéric DEMIANS :
>> Thanks all for your suggestions. I have to choose another name for sure.
>> Marc::Moose seems to be a reasonable choice. But I'm ve
2010/11/11 Frédéric DEMIANS :
>> Thanks all for your suggestions. I have to choose another name for sure.
>> Marc::Moose seems to be a reasonable choice. But I'm very tempted by a
>> shorter option: MarcX, MarcX::Record, MarcX::Parser, MarcX::Reader::Isis,
>> etc. Any objection?
Since MARC is an
Hi,
2010/11/11 Dueber, William :
> I think we should revisit “Biblio::”. Yes, I know MARC isn’t used only for
> bibliographic data, but it’s sure as hell not used to speak of outside the
> library/museum world. ‘Biblio’ might not be perfect, but it’s certainly not
> misleading in any meanigful way
I think we should revisit "Biblio::". Yes, I know MARC isn't used only for
bibliographic data, but it's sure as hell not used to speak of outside the
library/museum world. 'Biblio' might not be perfect, but it's certainly not
misleading in any meanigful way.
On 11/11/10 10:23 AM, "Galen Charlt
Hi,
2010/11/11 Frédéric DEMIANS :
> Thanks all for your suggestions. I have to choose another name for sure.
> Marc::Moose seems to be a reasonable choice. But I'm very tempted by a
> shorter option: MarcX, MarcX::Record, MarcX::Parser, MarcX::Reader::Isis,
> etc. Any objection?
Not from me, but
Thanks all for your suggestions. I have to choose another name for sure.
Marc::Moose seems to be a reasonable choice. But I'm very tempted by a
shorter option: MarcX, MarcX::Record, MarcX::Parser,
MarcX::Reader::Isis, etc. Any objection?
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Saiful Amin wrote:
> I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
> Biblio::Isis.
Biblio:: strikes me the wrong way -- MARC is used for more than just
bibliographic records, strictly speaking. I'd like Bryan's suggestion
of MARC::Moo
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:04 AM, Frédéric DEMIANS wrote:
>I'm not very comfortable with this library naming. Its purpose is very similar
>to MARC::Record and it is named 'Marc' and Marc::etc.
>Do you think, especially those managing MARC::Record, that it could be
>confusing and should b
I can't really comment on the namespace issue, but I do appreciate the
fact that this was written as a Moose module. That makes it much more
traditionally OO friendly, extensible, and if required, secure. When I
used Marc::Record more extensively, it was a favorite. I've worked on
several pro
Thanks for your feedback.
A couple of questions and comments (some left over from the much earlier
conversion from MARC.pm to the MARC::Record family):
1. Do you ever expect someone to use both your modules and MARC::Record
at the same time? If so, you need to be extra careful about name
overla
I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
Biblio::Isis.
Biblio::Marc sounds good to me.
Just a quick note: There is MARC::Fast[1] which should be named
Biblio::MARC because they share same API from end-user perspective.
However, it was written before Biblio::Isis, so it ended up in wrong
place.
I would prefer to have MooseX in name, because if I'm using Moose, I
don't really care
I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
Biblio::Isis.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Dueber, William wrote:
> It looks to me as if MooseX is used exclusively for extensions to the Moose
> system itself, not random modules that happen to use Moose.
>
> On 11/10/10
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:01:17PM +0530, Saiful Amin wrote:
> I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
> Biblio::Isis.
Just a quick note: There is MARC::Fast[1] which should be named
Biblio::MARC because they share same API from end-user perspective.
However, it was
It looks to me as if MooseX is used exclusively for extensions to the Moose
system itself, not random modules that happen to use Moose.
On 11/10/10 7:59 AM, "Bill Birthisel" wrote:
3. There is not really much of a problem (for users) with long names. It
appears MooseX:: is currently in common u
A couple of questions and comments (some left over from the much earlier
conversion from MARC.pm to the MARC::Record family):
1. Do you ever expect someone to use both your modules and MARC::Record
at the same time? If so, you need to be extra careful about name
overlaps.
2. MARC::Record also han
On 10/11/10 11:59, Bill Birthisel wrote:
> 3. There is not really much of a problem (for users) with long names. It
> appears MooseX:: is currently in common use on CPAN - so I would
> recommend MooseX::MARC. That appears to be to clearest choice and the
> one that fits the current naming patterns
Just out of curiosity - what was your main motivation for writing
another MARC module?
In what ways does your distribution differ from MARC::Record?
Moose Object-Oriented code reusability. I can clearly (hope so)
distinguish Marc record manipulation, parsing, converting, formatting,
reading
Is there a public repository (GitHub, Google Code, etc) of this code?
http://git.tamil.fr/?p=Marc;a=summary
Concerning the name of the module, Marc is probably not the best choice.
Maybe MARC::OO, MARC::Object, MARC::Tools, ...
Thks for your suggestions. I was thinking also to MooseX::Marc
Hi,
Great, I'll check this module soon.
Is there a public repository (GitHub, Google Code, etc) of this code?
Concerning the name of the module, Marc is probably not the best choice.
Maybe MARC::OO, MARC::Object, MARC::Tools, ...
Have a nice day!
Emmanuel Di Pretoro
Le 10 novembre 2010 07:03,
Just out of curiosity - what was your main motivation for writing
another MARC module?
In what ways does your distribution differ from MARC::Record?
Moose Object-Oriented code reusability. I can clearly (hope so)
distinguish Marc record manipulation, parsing, converting, formatting,
reading,
Frédéric,
Just out of curiosity - what was your main motivation for writing another MARC
module?
In what ways does your distribution differ from MARC::Record?
/Leif
29 matches
Mail list logo
