I actually do like that things live inside POE::... I just think "Component" is too long... so maybe POE::Co:: could be ok... or for that matter even we could just dump the "Co" altogether e.g. POE::Player::Mp3, POE::Server::TCP
-----Original Message----- From: Rocco Caputo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New PoCo Guidelines On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:41:35PM +0100, Matthew Trout wrote: > On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:19:59PM -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote: > > There's no requirement that they exist in POE::. For example, > > Term::Visual lives somewhere entirely different. > > > > One drawback, however, is you can't then use > > > > use POE qw(Component::Server::TCP Component::Client::DNS); > > > > The savings from a shorter base namespace may make that moot. > > Is there any reason we couldn't create a 'PoCo' base class or similar that > does the same job? The shortcut was a workaround for long class names. Shortening the class names may eliminate the need for a workaround. The reasons for or against a loader class are fuzzy judgment calls, not good vs. evil issues. One negative aspect I can think of offhand is that it makes class loading more complex. You should decide whether the convenience outweighs the complexity. Consider that the margin is ten characters narrower using "PoCo" (or even POEx, to follow in DBIx's footsteps). So, is it worth it? Does anyone have other reasons for or against it? -- Rocco Caputo - http://poe.perl.org/
