As a guide, here are the modules I currently maintain or co-maintain (ones marked with * aren't CPAN'ed yet).
I'd like the project to cover all of them (and possibly others).
AnyData (and its many sub-modules) Class::DBI::AnyData* Class::DBI::Multi* DBD::AnyData (formerly called DBD::RAM) DBD::CSV DBD::DBM DBD::File DBI::Format::HtmlTemplate (H::T support)* DBI::Format::Template (T::T support)* DBI::PurePerl DBI::SQL::Nano SQL::Parser SQL::Statement Text::CSV_XS
First of all, what is the general policy regarding modules that are currently bundled with the core DBI distribution itself? Several on your list are:
DBD::DBM DBD::File DBI::PurePerl DBI::SQL::Nano
The above are part of DBI-1.43 and have been in DBI-N for awhile.
I don't understand all the politics involved, but wouldn't these modules then be part of the maintenence group that includes DBI itself, rather than a separate one like you are proposing? Kind of like Perl5-Porters are the official maintainers for the modules that are bundled with Perl5?
Alternately, if they are indeed a separate project, then how is it determined which externally-maintained but related modules make the cut to be bundled with DBI itself and which ones don't? While I understand some choices, others seem rather arbitrary.
This matter should be worked out or enunciated before starting your central repository, so that the correct set of modules are there at its beginning.
<snip> so perhaps a name like PerlData would be better.
That might work. You do certainly want a name that is generic enough to apply to all components of the maintenance group, and yet distinct from other equally generic projects. Also, "data" does sound more low-end than "db", which goes along with your desired theme of "what dbms won't bother with".
I suppose I could resume use of the Perldb name that preceded DBI and with which Andy Duncan created a now very outdated sourceforge site based on my modules a few years ago ( http://perldb.sourceforge.net/ ). I'm completely open to suggestions.
If you're someone who likes nostalgia (and I do), then I would go ahead and use it, especially since what you are doing now is descended from that, and the name does work. Perhaps "data" is actually *too* generic, and PerlDB would work better for you.
I vote for the PerlDB name myself.
Alternately, you could reorder one of your other suggestions and go "Low End Db" (a riff on a web site called "Low End Mac" dedicated to older Macs), if it isn't already in use. This name, unlike one with "Perl" in the name, would also last into the newer age when you inevitably move to Parrot.
-- Darren Duncan
