I think if PACER is unambiguous (there's no other Web service named PACER) then further qualification shouldn't be needed.
If PACER is a single standard that could be used for multiple services other than the US courts (other countries were to implement the same service with the same api) then qualification would be at the other end... WebService::PACER::USCourt (for example). But PACER could be a term that is eventually overloaded when someone else names their own unrelated Web service PACER. While only a slim possibility I don't think forwardly ensuring unambiguous module naming wouldn't be a bad idea. Just my 2c worth. :) On Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:01 Tim Ka <tim.pota...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it specific to `UsCourt`? Could there be later a `MexicoCourt`? > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 10:22 Neil Bowers <ne...@neilb.org> wrote: > >> Hi Brian, >> >> I’d go with WebService::PACER – WebService is *one* of the standard >> namespaces on CPAN for this sort of module :-) >> >> You could slip a USCourt in the middle, but I don’t think that’s >> necessary – better to keep things simple. >> >> Cheers, >> Neil >> >
