At 15:52 25.06.2002, Tim Bunce wrote: >On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 01:28:25PM +0200, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote: > > At 12:26 25.06.2002, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: > > > > > >And... In all seriousness I don't see how the "three level names" > > >will help much. The tricky and important part is to describe what > > >the module does; not when it runs. > > > > > >I imagine that usually work done in the odd phases will be part of a > > >module primarily doing something else. (Log handler opening logs; > > >Apache::DBI opening database handles early, ...). > > > > Yes, but three-level names might help describe what the module does :-) > > Don't take the propositions too religiously, I never said that the > > 2nd-level name *had* to be a phase name.. I would much rather see logical > > namespaces that just "seem right". > >Yes, any religious conviction to a particular naming scheme will >come unstuck at some point. > >Using a phase name for the 2nd-level name would be quite reasonable >where the entire function of the module is *very* closely tied to the >action of just that one phase. > >There's naturally a danger that once that convention is established >then some modules will use a phase name for their 2nd-level name >even though they don't fuly meet the critera described above >(or maybe they did at version 1.x but don't at version 2.x). > >That's life. CPAN is littered with modules that could have been >given better names with hindsight and so too, I'd guess, is Apache::*. > >Whatever set of conventions you can come up with they'll always be >imperfect and imperfectly applied - but having them is still better >than not.
Yup :) I'll be working on this from thursday on. -- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
