Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 07/31/07 19:10, Dan Pascu wrote:
On Tuesday 31 July 2007, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Tuesday 31 July 2007, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Thus, for me it is ok if it is included to openser.
Ok, do you have a suggesting for a name? Perhaps "route" as module
name, and prefix the functions with "r_"?
"routing" as module name sounds better IMO.
I had no time to review the description of the module, however, for me,
using this kind of name related to route/routing will introduce
confusions discussing and referring configuration file (we have "route"
blocks, we refer a lot to "routing" logic), perhaps a name that should
make clear a difference would be much better -- just my opinion (e.g.,
sprouting, as I understand already has similar name).
I agree with Daniel. I immediately thought about record-routing/loose
routing and that i might confuse users. What about "prefixbasedrouting"?
I couldn't find a better one :-(
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
