In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Bunce said: > > Frameworks of multiple closely related modules are encouraged to > > have a catchy 'brand name' at the top level rather than fit into > > an existing namespace. e.g., Alzabo and Tangram. > > Tim. > Namely, I have been using "Portable Database > Interface" which shortens to "PDBI". So, would it be okay if I used a > top-level namespace of "PDBI" for my modules? i don't think you should use DBI in the name (unless you put it in DBIx::*). the DBI namespace is a definite group of modules that do things in a certain way, unlike, say, modules in HTTP::* that do things in different ways. i think you should either use a fanciful name (like Tim suggested) or something descriptive (e.g. DBIx::Common, etc. ). -- brian d foy (one of many PAUSE admins), http://pause.perl.org please send all messages back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
