Adi Fairbank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On, or in the near vicinity of Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:49:58 +0300 >Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has thus written: > >> Probably the best bet is to give it some cool unique name, like >> Apache::AdiChat and then you are all set, since you are not going to take over >> any future framework/namespaces... >> > >What's wrong with "WebMessaging" ? Do you foresee that interfering with some >future software in the Apache:: namespace, or is it just too generic? I thought >it was a good name since it accurately describes what it is: not webmail, not >instant messaging, but web messaging. (basically, it's like those message boxes >you get on a stock trading website when you login to your account) > >Here are the possibilities: > > 1 Apache::WebMessaging > 2 Apache::App::WebMessaging > 3 Apache::SomeOtherUniqueName (e.g. ServerMessaging, or UserMessaging, or >SystemMessaging) > >I personally prefer 1 or 2, so if there are no serious objections, I'll pick one >of those. Let me know which you like the best.
As an aside, RFC 1178 has some ideas on host naming that might be useful here: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1178.txt?number=1178 . We're not talking about naming hosts, but the principles are similar. (I do make a suggestion on names in the penultimate paragraph.) First, there are several things WebMessaging could mean: a Web e-mail client such as TWIG (in PHP) or SquirrelMail (I think in Perl) or a web interface for sending SMS messages to cell phones. There are protocols that this can be done with: SOAP, XML-RPC, Jabber, Sun RPC, SMTP, etc. Some are more useful in certain situations than others. For customer to customer messaging, there are several different types: instant messaging, usually mediated via Java clients but sometimes through a reloaded web page (at least in olden times [>4 years ago]), store and forward (e.g., WebCT internal e-mail system whereby customers can send messages to other customers without leaving the application). There are probably others I haven't run into yet or that I've forgotten about. >From what I can see from your description and a brief look at some of the code, you are doing a small portion of what web messaging can mean: customer to customer, store and forward messaging. Because you don't cover all the possibilities (and it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to do so), I would discourage using such a generic name. There are other applications on CPAN that use somewhat fanciful names that have a connection to the application: o I've used Uttu (a Sumerian goddess of weaving) for an application framework framework and Gestinanna (... of record keeping, iirc) for a system/customer account management application. (Neither of these are `popular' or finished enough to warrant any significant attention -- I use them only as examples.) o Dave Rolsky's used Alzabo (``The red orbs of the alzabo were something more, neither the intelligence of humankind nor the innocence of the brutes. So a fiend might look, I thought, when it had at last struggled up from the pit of some dark star.'' -- Gene Wolfe _The Sword of the Lictor__) for an RDBMS schema management and data access system. o Jonathan Swartz chose Mason for a component-based templating system. There's OpenInteract, Bricolage, Tangram, AxKit, etc., all of which have names only loosely tied to what they are doing. Having unique names like these helps in several ways. First, they don't preclude others from entering the same `market,' which can be seen as part of the TMTOWTDI tradition in Perl. Second, they serve to brand the application. If you give a talk about Web Messaging, what do people expect? We're back to the survey above. On the other hand, a talk about a particular name, such as Apache::App::Mercury, might let people know more quickly what you are wanting to discuss. Finally, you might want to change the version from 0.80pre1 to 0.80_01 -- CPAN might get confused by the first format. -- James Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 979-862-3725 Texas A&M CIS Operating Systems Group, Unix
