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 handles data as objects - just not the same objects as Moose. I think choices like MARC::OO and MARC::Object might be confusing to new users in the future. 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 most closely. -bill On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 08:12 +0100, Frédéric DEMIANS wrote: > > 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 but you > finish when subclassing with very long names... > -- > Frédéric > > >
