Hi Andreas, thanks for your quick reply.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:55:24 -0800 (PST), Nick Tonkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Normally I would call the module Weather::Marine::BuoyData or something
> > like that.
>
> > But I see that there is (a) no top level Weather.pm and (b) the
> > only module in Weather:: is Weather::Underground, a screen-scraper that
> > parses wunderground.com ...
>
> > I also see that there are several weather-related modules under
> > Geo:: (which seems a little obscure in itself), but with no apparent
> > naming convention. There's:
>
> > Geo::METAR
> > Geo::StormTracker::*
>
> > etc., but also
>
> > Geo::Weather # screen-scraper for weather.com
> > Geo::WeatherNOAA # screen-scraper for nws.noaa.gov
>
> > So: Should I go with Weather::Marine::BuoyData (since Weather:: has been
> > created already) or Geo::Weather::Marine::BuoyData (since that's where
> > most wether modules are)?
>
> Not only are most weather modules under Geo::, they have even been
> there since 1998. The root namespace Weather was taken in 2001 by a
> single module author. Unless there is a compelling reason to turn away
> from Geo::, I'd suggest staying there.
Hmm, only that it's very obscure, and more so now that the root-namespace
Weather:: has been created.
>
> > (I would really like to take a broom to this area of CPAN and get
> > everything organized into a rational namespace hierarchy, but I guess
> > that's not going to happen.)
>
> It usually does not happen because all authors legitimately claim that
> they cannot change their namespace because the modules already have so
> many users.
Heh. Sounds like we need some kind of magical uber-symlink system for perl
modules so we can move them around :)
>
> But of course, if you want to champion a Weather:: namespace and give
> clear directions for future development and set up a mailing list for
> weather-related modules and commit to it for a couple of years, then
> this would be a Good Thing.
Hm. My right (?) brain says to do it because it is such a mess now. My
left brain says to forget about it and let the chaos be happy. My total
brain has been watching Dave Rolsky wrestling with DateTime for the last
few weeks and says "Are you crazy?!"
Seriously though, I wouldn't mind taking on such a project except that I
have little confidence it would work, for the above-mentioned reason: the
authors wouldn't be likely to cooperate, and (unlike Rolsky) I am not
willing to reimplement myself everything that now exists.
Andreas, suppose there was agreement with a couple of the authors of the
more usefule modules: how would a transition work? I can imagine a system
where the modules were maintained in both namespaces for a period of time,
with a README in the to-be-obsolete one explaining that it's going to move
or whatever. Has that or something similar ever been done?
Thanks,
- nick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick Tonkin {|8^)>
