On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote: > At 20:52 02.09.2002, Randy Kobes wrote: [ ... ] > >One of the downsides of an Apache::Util::* name (and also some > >others in the suggested namespace categorization) is that there's > >already an Apache::Util in modperl-2. Although it's not a rule, > >there's a typical expectation that module X::Y::Z has a > >relationship of some sort to module X::Y. > > And there is already a Apache::Util in 1.0. I don't believe there will be > many misunderstandings, as they are all utility modules after all. It might > even help, because then people will group all Util:: modules together with > Apache::Util mentally.
I was thinking more of the hierarchy, not of the functional grouping. The convention of X::Y::Z being related to X::Y by, eg, using or requiring it or through inheritance is widespread (and is generally used at the top-level Apache::* namespace). One might similarly expect an Apache::Util::* module to require in some way Apache::Util, which if not true, could be confusing. Although this isn't a forced convention, it's so common that I think breaking it shouldn't be officially encouraged. -- best regards, randy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
