> > Unless I read the file incorrectly MIME::Lite is indeed
> > in the module list, at least I see it there.
> > Afaik its been in the wild since at least 98, if not
> > earlier. (I dont know the full history, I am only
> > the module maintainer)
>
> Ah, thanks. I'd missed it. (And I wish search.cpan.org made
> it easier to tell if a module is registered).
Indeed. I also wish CPAN.pm made it easier to search for and install unlisted modules.
>
> > Also, I believe that MIME::Lite quite likely predates
> > the peer review process, it certainly predates
> > these newfangled root level names like Mail:: and such.
>
> There's always been a review process for the Module List.
Really? Ok, my apologies.
> But it's always hard to look several years into the future
> when trying to see how namespaces might evolve.
I think that the issue here is that there has been an evolution as to how we think namespaces.
MIME:: seems to be named at the implementation level. Its for stuff that does MIME manipulation.
Mail:: seems to be named at the functional level. Its for stuff that does emails.
These are two totally different philosophies I would say. And personally I think the former makes more sense.
Consider a module like Net::SMTP. If it was named at the functional level it would probably be called Email::Transport or something. But personally I think Net::SMTP makes much more sense. It implements the Net:: prototcol SMTP. Should a new protocol come out we wouldnt be modifying Net::SMTP as we would probably have to modify Email::Transport, we would simply add a new module to libnet like Net:SFNMTP (Some Funky New Mail Transport Protocol[tm])
:-)
Yves
