Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:52:56AM -0600, Jonathan Rockway wrote: On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 23:29 +, Tim Bunce wrote: Re the choice of name for the low level library... Lib::Memcached Lib::memcached Lib::libmemcached My preference is for Lib::libmemcached because it

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:05:19 + Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or if you want Lib::, then Lib::memcached makes the most sense. Compare also to the C case: use Lib::memcached gcc ... -lmemcached The library's name is memcached; the fact it lives in a file called libmemcached.so is

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 12:51 +, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:05:19 + Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or if you want Lib::, then Lib::memcached makes the most sense. Compare also to the C case: use Lib::memcached Lib::Memcached Follows perl

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:04:04 -0500 Guy Hulbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lib::Memcached Follows perl conventions more closely ... iirc, all lower case is for pragmas and such ... but there seem to be precedents both ways. Ah yes, fair point. I was simply trying to argue against

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

brian d foy wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO, Lib doesn't carry as much information as Raw or even API, given the already existing modules. Raw and API don't mean anything. Everything is an API :) Yes, everything is an API, but

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 06:38:50PM +0100, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote: Tim Bunce wrote: If there's a libfoo.so and I want to create a perl module/distribution that's just a very thin wrapper around libfoo, what should I call it? LibFoo Lib::Foo Lib::foo Lib::libfoo

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

Tim Bunce wrote: I was thinking in terms of a low-level 'thin' extension called Lib::libmemcached with separate pure-perl modules implementing the Cache and Cache::Cache interfaces. Surely you found out about Cache::Memcached and friends? Basically what you're proposing is a refactoring of

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the To, Cc, and Newsgroups headers for details. ]] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's clear the Category::Foo scheme has the greater number of distributions. It's also clear there's no firmly established best

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 12:14 -0600, brian d foy wrote: I'd prefer Lib:: to Cache::. As you say, Cache is a mess. +1 Lib::Foo -1 Lib::libfoo -- --gh

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Dec 10, 2007 5:17 AM, Dominique Quatravaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1, imho it makes good sense to have (some future version of) Cache::Memcached depend on Lib::Memcached. me too

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

Tim Bunce wrote: I'm looking to build a very thin wrapper around libmemcached (http://tangent.org/552/libmemcached.html) a high-performance feature-rich interface to memcached. [...] I was thinking in terms of a low-level 'thin' extension called Lib::libmemcached with separate pure-perl

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:17:16PM +0100, Dominique Quatravaux wrote: Tim Bunce wrote: I was thinking in terms of a low-level 'thin' extension called Lib::libmemcached with separate pure-perl modules implementing the Cache and Cache::Cache interfaces. Surely you found out about

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:00:57PM +0100, Andreas J. Koenig wrote: On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:07:38 +, Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'm looking to build a very thin wrapper around libmemcached (http://tangent.org/552/libmemcached.html) a high-performance feature-rich interface

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

Tim Bunce writes: Re the choice of name for the low level library... Lib::Memcached Lib::memcached Lib::libmemcached My preference is for Lib::libmemcached because it emphasises the name of the library that it's a wrapper for. (Think of libmemcached as a brand name. easily

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:07:38 +, Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'm looking to build a very thin wrapper around libmemcached (http://tangent.org/552/libmemcached.html) a high-performance feature-rich interface to memcached. But there is BRADFITZ/Cache-Memcached-1.24.tar.gz

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

Tim Bunce wrote: On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 06:38:50PM +0100, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote: Tim Bunce wrote: If there's a libfoo.so and I want to create a perl module/distribution that's just a very thin wrapper around libfoo, what should I call it? LibFoo Lib::Foo

Re: Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

On Thursday 06 December 2007 23:11, Tim Bunce wrote: If there's a libfoo.so and I want to create a perl module/distribution that's just a very thin wrapper around libfoo, what should I call it? LibFoo Lib::Foo Lib::foo Lib::libfoo libfoo SomeCategory::Libfoo

Naming convention for thin wrappers around C libfoo.so ?

If there's a libfoo.so and I want to create a perl module/distribution that's just a very thin wrapper around libfoo, what should I call it? LibFoo Lib::Foo Lib::foo Lib::libfoo libfoo SomeCategory::Libfoo ??? Tim.