Doug MacEachern wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Stas Bekman wrote: > > >>Since in 2.0 we have the number of handlers almost doubled, do you think >> that it's a good idea to advise using the triple naming, suggested by >>Per Einar, as in: >> >> Apache::PostConfig::Whatever >> >>instead of: >> >> Apache::PostConfigWhatever > > > that's up to you for your examples.
heh, I want the examples to be close to real-world things, that's why I'm asking :) > but i personally won't be changing to > that convention. true facts that another level of namespace eat more > memory and take longer to lookup, personally, i find it ugly. > also, the more structures in memory the longer it will take for > perl_clone() to run. both modperl use that as does threads.pm. > so the argument of "memory is cheap" doesn't fly as well with threads. > > perhaps asking [EMAIL PROTECTED] why the module list says: > "Please avoid using more than one level of nesting for module names > (packages or classes within modules can, of course, use any number)." > > would shed more light. Your reasoning (other than the ugliness factor) satisfies me. Thanks! So should the guidelines suggest to use: Apache::FullPhaseNameYourModuleName for packages that fit into a single phase? __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
