Sorry about that Stas & thanks for point it out.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stas Bekman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 10:17 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ayhan Ulusoy
> Subject: Re: Namespace for 3rd party general-purpose mp2 modules
>
> [Ayhan, in the future, please don't reply to an existing thread, when
you
> start a new one. it causes mail clients and archive file irrelevant
posts
> into
> the same thread as the relevant ones. I started a new thread with this
> reply.
> Thanks.]
>
> > Do we have an "official" namespace for general-purpose third-party
> > modules meant to be run under "mp2" ?
>
> Yes, Apache::
>
> > In mp1, "Apache" was widely used for this purpose, but it's no
good...
>
> It's good. You want to keep your module under Apache:: because when
mp3
> comes,
> you won't want your users to change their code because you renamed
your
> module
> to Apache3::. Say you used Apache::Request in mp1, it works the same
in
> mp2,
> so you don't have to change your code when you move to mp2 it'll work
just
> the
> same.
[Ayhan]
[Ayhan] The reason I thought it wouldn't be good is that :
1) The mod_perl standard distribution comes under "Apache::" and it
might be useful to distinguish what is "standard" and what is 3rd party,
but if mp2-dev doesn't have any problems with that, then it's OK.
2) Despite all the efforts towards "compatibility", let's face it, a lot
of the "intricate" mp1 modules on CPAN are just downright broken right
now.
Pure response handlers should largely work, but those who tried to
emulate things that mp2 (and apache2) do by design (like filters) are
just beasts to be left -and maintained- in the mp1 world I think. If
90% of the code has to be duplicated in a "if (mp1) {..} else {..}"
statement, I don't think it's worth keeping the same name.
This applies mostly to filtering though, where we have seen a real
paradigm-shift. The scope has been widened too : Before it was a
"Perl-only" deal. Now it fits in, and beautifully I must add, to the
Apache layered-IO framework.
Then again, this is my personal opinion, and I'll go with whatever the
"official" namespace happens to be. Besides, the "name change" does not
absolutely have to be in the "Apache::" part of the name space. It can
happen down below, if it has to occur at all.
>
> The only problem really is the CPAN support, when two versions of a
module
> are
> available. The problem is known and we should get some answers from
the
> CPAN
> team shortly (there was a CPAN meeting a few days ago).
>
[Ayhan] What do you mean? One can download any version from CPAN
archives today.
If, on the other hand, CPAN is to automatically detect the installed
apache / mp version and fetch the "right" module version or something,
that's kind of voodoo and could cause lots of headaches.
> > The docs speak about "MyApache", but it just doesn't sound right.
>
> Docs use MyApache:: only for examples, certainly not the CPAN
namespace.
[Ayhan] Yes, that's what I had kind of guessed.
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> 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]
