> >I wasn't clear. I was thinking that somehow a module would register with
> >the core what interfaces it support when it is installed. Anything else
> >is madness (ok, my idea is madness too).
>
> Your idea's not madness--it is, in fact, what I'm looking for us to define.
A gut feeling that I have is we can't simply go by interface 'names',
be they just simple names of funtions/methods or their full 'signatures'
(let us not even start on (1) how difficult with Perl's type system
and functions it is to define signatures (2) the difficulty in
defining an ontology/vocabulary), either would not really be enough.
What I think is needed is some sort of opaque tag: the name of the
'contract' the API claims to fulfill. The name can be the name of
the standard, the name of the company, the name of the individual.
(Java does a very similar thing but they propose embedding the DNS
name as part of the package name: I think they the right idea but
the proposed implementation sucks.)
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
