On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Lincoln A. Baxter wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > I think in many cases one would get away with AUTOLOAD. Move the code
> > to the new namespace and let the old namespace be handled by an
> > AUTOLOAD dispatcher that simply calls the new namespace. In the
> > beginning you issue a warning when the old namespace gets loaded. Time
> > goes by and you add a warning to the dispatcher whenever old namespace
> > is called. Then you slowly stop maintaining the dispatcher.
> >
> > A similar approach has successfully been done with my Msql.pm which
> > predated the DBI. When Jochen Wiedmann's DBD::Msql started to work, we
> > made all Msql.pm classes simple wrappers to DBD::Msql. Today Msql.pm
> > is phased out, I don't think that anybody is still using it.
>
> Andreas's advice is, as always, excellent.
Yep, I think that is eminently doable. I trust I can rely on Andreas,
Jochen, or others to show me how to code it ...
> If I were looking for Weather modules, would probably look first for
> Weather:: not Geo::Weather.
Absolutely. So would anyone, I fancy.
> BUT, a CPAN module search would find your
> modules under Geo::. I guess the really question you have to answer (or
> get answered), is would the other Weather module authors support the
> move. It would take several years of diligence and
> evangelism to put it off.
>
> Further, Weather::Underground is a "cute" or "silly" name, that does not
> even usefull describe what it does... For instance what is
> wonderground.com?
Agreed. Bad name. wunderground.com is a pretty cool site though, actually.
But there are several of these 'scrapers' and I think they should be under
<whatever>::WWW::* really. THere's more to weather than reading web pages.
> Geo::Weather is not terrible as namespaces go... infact it is a heck of
> a lot better than Weather::Underground.
Not terrible, but not intuitive.
>
> I guess I am saying I think like the idea of moving the Weather
> modules... unless there are a bunch of other modules under Geo:: that
> could be consider related to Geo:: in a way similar to the way Weather
> might be consider related to Geo... (which I presume refers to Earth).
> If we start consider other planets, on the other hand... may Geo should
> really be Planitary:: sigh... or maybe Weather should stand on its
> own... Enough rambling.
Well, there are several modules under the root Geo:: space that deal with
coordinates in space, plotting, IP location databases, postal code
databases, etc. Then there are just a few weather modules:
Geo::METAR - aviation METAR data
Geo::TAF - aviation TAF and METAR data
Geo::Weather - data from weather.com
Geo::WeatherNOAA - data from nws.noaa.gov
Geo::WeatherNWS - data from weather.noaa.gov
Geo::StormTracker::* - data on NWS tropical storm advisories (seems dead)
So, I don't think it would be that big of a deal to move them to
Weather:: (if the authors agreed) Then you'd have something like:
Weather::Aviation::METAR
Weather::Aviation::TAF
Weather::US::NOAA
Weather::US::NOAA::NWS
Weather::WWW::WeatherUnderground
Weather::WWW::WeatherDotCom
and then
Weather::Marine::BuoyData
and so on.
One question though: since there would be no Weather.pm root module, what
you put there? Just a README, or a small module to print a notice that
there is no functionality at that namespace and to please search CPAN or
something?
Meanwhile, what do you guys think? I'm willing to commit to the project
and see if I can get the authors along, if folks agree with Andreas that
it would be a Good Thing.
- nick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick Tonkin {|8^)>
