Assuming it is based on DBI at its core, your module would fit better
in the DBI extension area. I think DBIx::Backup::MySQL would be good,
as it would leave room for expansions to databases other than ::MySQL.
Chris
On Oct 25, 2004, at 3:00 PM, Sean Quinlan wrote:
Good afternoon,
I've been
Christopher Hicks writes:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Smylers wrote:
... DBIx:: should be for things that are generally usable with DBI,
where the I is independent ...
I agree with Chris much more than Smylers here, but if we go along
with Smylers perspective for a minute then we need /some/
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Smylers wrote:
Christopher Hicks writes:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Smylers wrote:
... DBIx:: should be for things that are generally usable with DBI,
where the I is independent ...
I agree with Chris much more than Smylers here, but if we go along
with Smylers perspective for a
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 04:34:32PM -0400, Christopher Hicks wrote:
When I read Mark's message I realized his point is what I'd been wanting
to say in the first place; so the more _I_ think about it, the more
DBIx:: seems like a completely inappropriate place for this module!
How is doing a
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, _brian_d_foy wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Smylers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the opposite -- that DBIx:: should be for things that are
generally usable with DBI, where the I is independent. Things such as
backing up tend not to be database-independent.
if we
