On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 01:17, Erick Calder wrote: > > POEx > > I like the brevity of this. my issue however, is that the implication is > that modules in that namespace are extensions... and I don't perceive > components as extensions... an extension is more or less an afterthough: > uh... we didn't think of this so let's extend the framework, whereas a > component is an integral part of a system, which I believe is more closely > aligned with the function of POE components.
I wouldn't hang to much argument off a nuanced definition of what "extension" means. Like DBIx, POEx would stand for cool add-ons to POE that are not core-POE or enhancements to core-POE . For example, my POE::Component::LaDBI would definitely go into the POEx namespace. It mearly implements a Session wrapped around a Run Wheel that does DBI calls. However, Sungo's POE::API::Peek module should go into the POE name- space because it is an enhancement of the core-POE infrastructure. It is maintained seprately, from the core-POE package because (I think) it doesn't support older version of POE and changes at a different pace than core-POE. I for one vote for POEx cuz there is precedent in DBI/DBIx, and it makes a clear distinction to consumers of the code, that POEx:: is much more irregular in quality and maintainence than POE:: modules. -Sean.
