Re: please help me name a module
Greg Lindahl writes: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:38:00PM +0100, Smylers wrote: How about Vehicle::Tesla::ModelS then? Does putting Device:: in front of that lot actually add anything, other than to the unwieldiness of the name? Vehicle:: doesn't generalize very well to toasters, refrigerators, etc. Does it have to? If modules for such household goods come along, how much does it help users for those modules to share a namespace with modules for vehicles? (Note they can share implementation, or not, independently of whether they share a namespace.) If a new top-level name is a good idea, It isn't a good idea _per se_; it's only a good idea if none of the existing ones seem to fit. I'd suggest an Internet-of-Things top-level, Thing:: or IoT:: or IOT:: Would somebody who has a Tesla car (or indeed a toaster) think of searching for IOT? Would somebody seeing IOT in a module name realize what it means? (I don't think I would.) “Thing” is such a generic word that I don't think prepending Thing:: adds any meaning at all. While you're using “thing” in quite a specific way, almost anything could be thought of as a thing. I'd say Device:: is more meaningful than Thing::. This particular module, btw, will probably be good for future Tesla vehicles; it's anyone's guess how the API will evolve. In that case go with your instinct and name it ::Tesla. If other Tesla APIs come into being (either for different cars or later versions for the Model S) your module can always be extended to cope with those somehow. Smylers -- Stop drug companies hiding negative research results. Sign the AllTrials petition to get all clinical research results published. Read more: http://www.alltrials.net/blog/the-alltrials-campaign/
Re: please help me name a module
# from Bill Ward on Thursday 12 September 2013: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Greg Lindahl lind...@pbm.com wrote: Vehicle:: doesn't generalize very well to toasters, refrigerators, etc. If a new top-level name is a good idea, I'd suggest an Internet-of-Things top-level, Thing:: or IoT:: or IOT:: ... Thing::Vehicle::Tesla::ModelS? A::Vehicle::Tesla::ModelS I don't think it's strictly necessary to generalize the top-level namespace. Would one be unable to locate the refrigerator interface module without it being filed under things? It might be better as Car::Tesla::ModelS or Tesla::ModelS. --Eric -- --- http://scratchcomputing.com ---
RE: please help me name a module
I think Car::Tesla:: ... is TRT here. Vehicle is nice and general, but I wouldn't expect to share a namespace with stuff for working with my pushbike speedo. Car:: is pretty clear and universal. Internet-of-Things is an amusing byline for journos, but doesn't actually mean anything (or at least, I've never seen a definition that's actually useful). -Original Message- From: Eric Wilhelm [mailto:enoba...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 9:18 AM To: module-authors@perl.org Subject: Re: please help me name a module # from Bill Ward on Thursday 12 September 2013: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Greg Lindahl lind...@pbm.com wrote: Vehicle:: doesn't generalize very well to toasters, refrigerators, etc. If a new top-level name is a good idea, I'd suggest an Internet-of-Things top-level, Thing:: or IoT:: or IOT:: ... Thing::Vehicle::Tesla::ModelS? A::Vehicle::Tesla::ModelS I don't think it's strictly necessary to generalize the top-level namespace. Would one be unable to locate the refrigerator interface module without it being filed under things? It might be better as Car::Tesla::ModelS or Tesla::ModelS. --Eric -- --- http://scratchcomputing.com ---
Re: please help me name a module
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:28:30AM +0100, Pearce, Martyn wrote: I think Car::Tesla:: ... is TRT here. Vehicle is nice and general, but I wouldn't expect to share a namespace with stuff for working with my pushbike speedo. Car:: is pretty clear and universal. Internet-of-Things is an amusing byline for journos, but doesn't actually mean anything (or at least, I've never seen a definition that's actually useful). It's interesting that all of you guys don't think much of the Internet of Things name. Here in the Silicon Valley we have talks, meetup groups, conferences, and startups focused on the phrase -- it's not driven by journalists. I have no idea if it's going to stay popular by that name. My use of the car sensors is very much in the Internet of Things style: I do the same kinds of maps and charts and statistics you'd do for your bike rides or hikes, and there's also stuff related to the fact that it's got a battery and charges and discharges. Exercise gear is another source of naming inspiration: existing modules are WWW::Nike::NikePlus, WWW::Jawbone::Up, a top level of GPS:: for gps eqipment. And nothing for FitBit. Not so organized. -- greg
