Re: Top level naming suggestion
Before I upload the code (which is already written, for all methods MetaCPAN allows, and more) to CPAN and Github, I just wanted to know that taking a top-level namespace here makes sense and get any input on it. Here are some notes: 1. It does not use Mechanize, LWP, or anything for which the WWW:: namespace would make sense. naming something after its implementation details doesn't make sense. Including the name of a framework in the name of a plugin makes sense, but that's different. 2. Tiny and concise, as to be an official completely workable API implementation (currently using Mouse - or rather, Any::Moose - and HTTP::Tiny). 3. I prefer not to bury this inside a low namespace (WebService::PerlRelated::MetaCPAN::API::Implementation::Sawyer). 4. I've spoken to Olaf Alders from MetaCPAN and he assured me they have no problem with the name, and that they would use it themselves once it's out. how about MetaCPAN::API since that's what it provides? So MetaCPAN::FAQ and MetaCPAN::Server can be at the same level. But that's redundant isn't it; if one wants to use MetaCPAN one is going to need to use the API -- including ::API may be toxic clarity.
Re: Top level naming suggestion
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:39 PM, David Nicol davidni...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Tiny and concise, as to be an official completely workable API implementation (currently using Mouse - or rather, Any::Moose - and HTTP::Tiny). 3. I prefer not to bury this inside a low namespace (WebService::PerlRelated::MetaCPAN::API::Implementation::Sawyer). 4. I've spoken to Olaf Alders from MetaCPAN and he assured me they have no problem with the name, and that they would use it themselves once it's out. how about MetaCPAN::API since that's what it provides? I thought that was implied by me picking that name, but thanks for explicitly stating it. So MetaCPAN::FAQ and MetaCPAN::Server can be at the same level. But that's redundant isn't it; if one wants to use MetaCPAN one is going to need to use the API -- including ::API may be toxic clarity. No necessarily. MetaCPAN have written MetaCPAN.pm (not on CPAN yet), which they use for the maintenance of MetaCPAN, such as DB access, etc.
