Sean Davis wrote: > > > On 7/6/06 2:28 PM, "Joel Gwynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> True. One should also consider google-ability. Web::Application >> could be as difficult to google as .NET. > > I further this sentiment. Sticking religiously to "name is function" > satisfies one goal, but may fall short for others. Is there a big downside > to "going out on a limb" with the name (perhaps within the Web:: namespace, > perhaps not)?
While I agree that having a nice name is good for a framework, I'm doubtful about using it as the name of a perl module. C::A isn't really a framework in the sense that Maypole, Catalyst, Jifty, C::A::F, etc are. I think having it be a module and not a framework means there are more people working on it. So any frameworks that want to use it can do so and benefit from it's non-framework usage. The other frameworks can't really say that. -- Michael Peters Developer Plus Three, LP --------------------------------------------------------------------- Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/cgiapp@lists.erlbaum.net/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
