I suggest that given POE's start as something like a MUD and the fact that anything worth calling simply "MUD" needs to be very widely scoped and generic, you name your module something other than POE::Server::MUD.
Perhaps simply POE::Server::(NameOfYourMUD) or POE::Server::MUD::(NameOfYourMUD). Also the latter implies that a generic MUD framework exists and that your module uses it. I strongly prefer the former given that a MUD doesn't usually use a specific protocol, just plain text, so it's better given the name of your specific software product. If someone else writes a MUD what namespace will it occupy? At any rate POE::Server::MUD is asinine since MUD isn't at all equivalent to TCP or IRC or whatever. Given POE's roots, something using a generic MUD namespace had better be nearly as comprehensive as POE itself. --- Exide Arabellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Im working on a module that utilizes > POE::Component::Server::TCP. Being > the neat freak that i am, im inclined to name the > module > POE::Component::Server::TCP::MUD, though it seems > rather cumbersome. > I've seen other modules (such as IRC::Bot) that take > the last module and > use it as the begining of theirs. However when doing > a CPAN search, > having the full title is helpful for a first glance > appraisal of how its > written. > > Is this something people just do however they see > fit, or is there a > standard/movement to have it one way or the other? > > Disclaimer: I apologize if this has been covered, in > the case that it > has please point me to the post. I tried to scan for > it, but didn't come > up with anything. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
