Peter Karman a écrit :
Alexandre Jousset wrote on 9/20/07 11:41 AM:
I'm sure I haven't your experience but for me (and also for Peter
Karman, C::C::Rose author), the suffix "::Simple" (suggested by him)
means "Take all that [what already exists, i.e. Catalyst and Rose] and
make it simpler to use together".
>
Actually, I had suggested you use ::Simple because in your original
email to me, (a) you had indicated you intended to use C::C::Rose, but
with an API similar to the FormBuilder philosophy, and (b) you had a
working title of C::C::Rose::FormManager, which I thought would be
misleading, since all the existing C::C::Rose::* classes also manage forms.
First, I am sorry to have spoken for you. I thought we were OK on
that...
As you indicate below, you don't use any of the C::C::Rose code, design
or philosophy, so sharing the namespace seems misleading at the very least.
So I'd prefer it if you used a difference namespace altogether. I
believe the latest best practice recommendation is to use the CatalystX
top-level space. Perhaps something like CatalystX::RHTMLOManager or
similar.
Well... I don't mind to call it something else, so now I'm just (once
again) looking for a good name. CatalystX::<Something>, ok.
CatalystX::RHTMLOManager, NOK because it also deals optionally with RDBO
and I would like to mention this fact, and I think the best way is to
use the "Rose" name.
CatalystX::RoseIntegrator? ;-)
My only concern is that a search on CPAN with "Catalyst" and "Rose"
should make it show up.
--
\^/
-/ O \----------------------------------------
| |/ \| Alexandre (Midnite) Jousset |
-|___|----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org
Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
