RE: Module submission Framework::Core
I would like to migrate Framework::Core:... to Ginger::... as per the
conversation here on the list a bit over 2 weeks ago.
If this is acceptable, it would be great if the naming could be approved
and registered officially. I would rather not repeatedly rename the core
system until an acceptable naming convention can be reached.
For ease of reference, I have quoted the relevant original emails below.
Original Message
Subject: Re: Module submission Framework::Core
From: Matt S Trout m...@shadowcat.co.uk
Date: Wed, May 01, 2013 3:43 pm
To: David Helkowski codech...@cpan.org
Cc: modules@perl.org, brian d foy brian.d@gmail.com
I approve entirely of your means to figure out what name to use.
Note that I can't quote your email since it was HTML only; you might want to
hit your mail client with a stick until it doesn't do that :)
--
Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a
clue
http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/
Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst
commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
Original Message
Subject: RE: Module submission Framework::Core
From: David Helkowski codech...@cpan.org
Date: Wed, May 01, 2013 3:38 pm
To: Matt S Trout m...@shadowcat.co.uk
Cc: modules@perl.org, brian d foy brian.d@gmail.com
I agree that this would make sense, and ties in well with how things are done
now and the naming suggestions. Renaming the module in that way would also
help reduce having 'App::Core' in front of every single piece of the system.
I propose to use the name 'Ginger' as the new root namespace to use. There is
still a core component to it, but that is one piece of it, and is actually a
core to it. The other components will be named under 'Ginger' to represent
their purposes.
I would be open to other names if people could suggest some. If a branding
name is to be chosen, I would like it to be something somewhat unique that
does not coincide with other popular technology components or concepts that
would mislead people as to what it is. I believe 'Ginger' is distinct and
unusual enough that it will not lead people to think of it as anything other
than what it is.
As for why I would choose that name; my wife is Japanese and I happen to just
be drinking ginger tea 10 minutes ago. ( seems as good as any reason to me
when a random non-descriptive word must be chosen )
Original Message
Subject: Re: Module submission Framework::Core
From: Matt S Trout m...@shadowcat.co.uk
Date: Wed, May 01, 2013 1:48 pm
To: David Helkowski codech...@cpan.org
Cc: modules@perl.org, brian d foy brian.d@gmail.com
This module is clearly going to sprawl over time, so I would prefer you
gave it a top-level name in the same way e.g. Catalyst, Mojolicious have
done.
Framework:: isn't appropriate since 'Core' would suggest some sort of
privileged position within that namespace.
This is why the whole branded-top-level thing came about; there's just no
other way of doing it that doesn't cause confusion.
--
Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a
clue
http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/
Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst
commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
Original Message
Subject: RE: Module submission Framework::Core
From: David Helkowski codech...@cpan.org
Date: Wed, May 01, 2013 6:11 am
To: modules@perl.org, brian d foy brian.d@gmail.com
The Framework::Core set of modules does currently include session handling,
path routing, and a module to tie it to mongrel2 to receive web request, but
that is not the end goal or design of it. It is meant to be a fully modular
application framework, suitable for either web applications or native command
line utilities coded in perl.
As it is developed examples will be included with it showing how it can be
used in that fashion. I would prefer not to name it WebApp::Core, because
that is not the end goal of the system, it just so happens to be what I am
using it for at the moment.
This also differentiates it from other application frameworks out there; it
is meant so that all of the web or intranet parts can be shut off
entirely and the system still works and provides valuable functionality.
Original Message
Subject: Re: Module submission Framework::Core
From: brian d foy brian.d@gmail.com
Date: Tue, April 30, 2013 6:33 pm
To: codech...@cpan.org
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the To, Cc, and Newsgroups headers for details. ]]
In article 20130430162147.0754a1f...@pause.perl.org, Perl Authors
RE: Module submission Framework::Core
The Framework::Core set of modules does currently include session handling, path routing, and a module to tie it to mongrel2 to receive web request, but that is not the end goal or design of it. It is meant to be a fully modular application framework, suitable for either web applications or native command line utilities coded in perl.As it is developed examples will be included with it showing how it can be used in that fashion. I would prefer not to name it WebApp::Core, because that is not the end goal of the system, it just so happens to be what I am using it for at the moment.This also differentiates it from other application frameworks out there; it is meant so that all of the "web" or "intranet" parts can be shut off entirely and the system still works and provides valuable functionality. Original Message ---- Subject: Re: Module submission Framework::Core From: brian d foy brian.d@gmail.com Date: Tue, April 30, 2013 6:33 pm To: codech...@cpan.org [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] In article 20130430162147.0754a1f...@pause.perl.org, "Perl Authors Upload Server" upl...@pause.perl.org wrote: modid: Framework::Core DSLIP: adpOp description: Modular application framework userid: CODECHILD (David Helkowski) Uniqueness: The approach taken by Framework::Core is different from other frameworks available on Cpan, because it is setup to provide all of the base modules needed to create a nearly fully functional intranet/web application. It sounds like a better name might be WebApp::Core since your description is heavily skewed toward that sort of use. This doesn't sound like something anyone would want to use for anything other than web apps. https://pause.perl.org/pause/authenquery?ACTION=""> -- brian d foy (one of many PAUSE admins), http://pause.perl.org PAUSE instructions: http://pause.perl.org/pause/query?ACTION=""> Archives: http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/modules Please send all messages back to modules@perl.org with no CC to me.
Re: Module submission Framework::Core
This module is clearly going to sprawl over time, so I would prefer you gave it a top-level name in the same way e.g. Catalyst, Mojolicious have done. Framework:: isn't appropriate since 'Core' would suggest some sort of privileged position within that namespace. This is why the whole branded-top-level thing came about; there's just no other way of doing it that doesn't cause confusion. -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
RE: Module submission Framework::Core
I agree that this would make sense, and ties in well with how things are done now and the naming suggestions. Renaming the module in that way would also help reduce having 'App::Core' in front of every single piece of the system.I propose to use the name 'Ginger' as the new root namespace to use. There is still a core component to it, but that is one piece of it, and is actually a core to it. The other components will be named under 'Ginger' to represent their purposes.I would be open to other names if people could suggest some. If a branding name is to be chosen, I would like it to be something somewhat unique that does not coincide with other popular technology components or concepts that would mislead people as to what it is. I believe 'Ginger' is distinct and unusual enough that it will not lead people to think of it as anything other than what it is.As for why I would choose that name; my wife is Japanese and I happen to just be drinking ginger tea 10 minutes ago. ( seems as good as any reason to me when a random non-descriptive word must be chosen ) Original Message Subject: Re: Module submission Framework::Core From: Matt S Trout m...@shadowcat.co.uk Date: Wed, May 01, 2013 1:48 pm To: David Helkowski codech...@cpan.org Cc: modules@perl.org, brian d foy brian.d@gmail.com This module is clearly going to sprawl over time, so I would prefer you gave it a top-level name in the same way e.g. Catalyst, Mojolicious have done. Framework:: isn't appropriate since 'Core' would suggest some sort of privileged position within that namespace. This is why the whole branded-top-level thing came about; there's just no other way of doing it that doesn't cause confusion. -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
Re: Module submission Framework::Core
I approve entirely of your means to figure out what name to use. Note that I can't quote your email since it was HTML only; you might want to hit your mail client with a stick until it doesn't do that :) -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
Re: Module submission Framework::Core
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the To, Cc, and Newsgroups headers for details. ]] In article 20130430162147.0754a1f...@pause.perl.org, Perl Authors Upload Server upl...@pause.perl.org wrote: modid: Framework::Core DSLIP: adpOp description: Modular application framework userid: CODECHILD (David Helkowski) Uniqueness: The approach taken by Framework::Core is different from other frameworks available on Cpan, because it is setup to provide all of the base modules needed to create a nearly fully functional intranet/web application. It sounds like a better name might be WebApp::Core since your description is heavily skewed toward that sort of use. This doesn't sound like something anyone would want to use for anything other than web apps. https://pause.perl.org/pause/authenquery?ACTION=pause_namingmodules -- brian d foy (one of many PAUSE admins), http://pause.perl.org PAUSE instructions: http://pause.perl.org/pause/query?ACTION=pause_04about Archives: http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/modules Please send all messages back to modules@perl.org with no CC to me.
RE: Module submission Framework::Core
I would just like to place my module in the appropriate sensible place.I understand very well that it is difficult if not impossible for people with existing modules to put them under a 'Framework' namespace, am merely suggesting that it would be a reasonable place for any such future modules to go.If it is more desirable to place the module under 'App' I can certainly do that, but that seemed to be against the suggestions on the pause guidelines.I have already altered all the module components to be under Framework::Core, and uploaded that version to my pause account. Unless there are any objections to the naming, this is still where I would like to place it. Original Message Subject: Re: Module submission Framework::Core From: brian d foy brian.d@gmail.com Date: Wed, April 24, 2013 9:52 am To: codech...@cpan.org [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] In article 20130423185355.67fa51f...@pause.perl.org, "Perl Authors Upload Server" upl...@pause.perl.org wrote: The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List: modid: Framework::Core DSLIP: adpOp description: Modular application framework userid: CODECHILD (David Helkowski) Most people aren't looking to classify their frameworks by names. You mentioned Catalyst and others; they didn't choose their names because they didn't find a general noun to place their modules under. They aren't trying to classify their modules in the era of "Search". You can upload your module where you like, but I don't think other people are going to follow you. -- brian d foy (one of many PAUSE admins), http://pause.perl.org PAUSE instructions: http://pause.perl.org/pause/query?ACTION=""> Archives: http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/modules Please send all messages back to modules@perl.org with no CC to me. Original Message Subject: Module submission Framework::Core From: "Perl Authors Upload Server" upl...@pause.perl.org Date: Tue, April 23, 2013 2:53 pm To: modules@perl.org,codech...@cpan.org The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List: modid: Framework::Core DSLIP: adpOp description: Modular application framework userid: CODECHILD (David Helkowski) chapterid: 3 (Development_Support) communities: newsgroups, bug tracker similar: App::Core rationale: There currently exists no root namespace to contain application frameworks on Cpan, despite there being a number of modules that -are- application frameworks. Some of them are hosted under App ( such as App::Framework::Core ) Others are hosted at the root ( Catalyst, Jifty, etc ) I had originally chosen the name App::Core for this module, due to it's dependence and creation around the features provided by the Class::Core module. A preliminary version of the new module is currently uploaded on my Cpan account under that name. I would like to rename it to Framework::Core and register that namespace, so that a root 'Framework' namespace can be created, my module can go there as 'Framework::Core', and other Cpan module authors could place their frameworks there as well, rather than continuing to pollute the root namespace or other special purpose namespaces such as 'App' ( which is specifically stated that it should only contain actual applications, not components ) Thank you. enteredby: CODECHILD (David Helkowski) enteredon: Tue Apr 23 18:53:55 2013 GMT The resulting entry would be: Framework:: ::CoreadpOp Modular application frameworkCODECHILD
Re: Module submission Framework::Core
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the To, Cc, and Newsgroups headers for details. ]] In article 20130423185355.67fa51f...@pause.perl.org, Perl Authors Upload Server upl...@pause.perl.org wrote: The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List: modid: Framework::Core DSLIP: adpOp description: Modular application framework userid: CODECHILD (David Helkowski) Most people aren't looking to classify their frameworks by names. You mentioned Catalyst and others; they didn't choose their names because they didn't find a general noun to place their modules under. They aren't trying to classify their modules in the era of Search. You can upload your module where you like, but I don't think other people are going to follow you. -- brian d foy (one of many PAUSE admins), http://pause.perl.org PAUSE instructions: http://pause.perl.org/pause/query?ACTION=pause_04about Archives: http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/modules Please send all messages back to modules@perl.org with no CC to me.
