Two names that came to mind this weekend are "Camel" and "Caffeine."
I was trying to think of words that started with CA to represent
CGI::Application. If we were switching the name of CGI::Application to
Web::Application then there is something like "Wall." Not sure if I
like that one be it works with the train of thought I had. <tim/>
On 7/7/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I've caught up all the re-branding conversation. I'll try to add a
fresh perspective.
There are really two things we are talking about here. One is a single
Perl module named CGI::Application. The other is a Larger Thing Which
Not Yet Been Named. Roughly, this is "what you can do with
CGI::Application and the forty-something plugins for it".
When I wrote the "Catalyst Compared" article, I was referring to the
Larger Thing. Other people have started to use words "CGI::Application"
to mean this Larger Thing, too, and it's no wonder it doesn't feel
adequate, as it is easily confused with the single Perl module.
I think both things are worth name adjustments, but they are rather
different cases. "CGI::Application" would be nice to change to get CGI
out of the name. First, CGI is needless jargon for new users. Second,
for power users, it sounds like it specializes in an older technology,
when in truth it works great in fast, persistent environments.
I propose "Web::Application" for this purpose, with an alias for
compatibility. Some suggested this was sub-optimal because it's not
Google'able. This is not important for the success of a Perl module.
Simple, more technical names are often better. Consider the modules
"Template", "HTML::Template" and "CGI", which are all extremely popular
despite totally generic names.
The Larger Thing Which Has Not Yet Been Named is very different story.
It could be targeted at a different audience. New Users. Non Perl users.
Users of other web frameworks.
The problem with the Larger Thing Which Has Not Yet Been Named is that
it hasn't been particularly built yet either, unless we want to continue
to refer to nebulous plugin-collection we have now.
Personally, I'd like to see something concrete appear that really takes
us into into new territory. It might meet these goals:
- Easy installation. No CPAN needed.
- Bundles the most popular plugins by default.
- Includes one or more example applications and tutorials.
- Deployable without shell access. To accomplish this, perhaps
CGI::Application::Server would be used to build and test the
application locally.
- Has cool marketing name referring to this specific Larger Thing.
That's my own vision for bringing our easy-to-learn framework to those
who are just learning. ( I explain the philosophy of this more here:
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=519032 ). There are a lot of other
larger concrete framework-like-things which can be built on top of
CGI::Application. We don't need to stop at just one or agree on a single
concept.
But I do think it would help tremendously if there were something
concrete to represent the Larger Thing Which Has Not Yet Been Named.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--
Timothy Appnel
Appnel Solutions
http://www.appnel.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
