Hi,
> There has been quite a bit of followup to my first posted ramblings; I've
> recieved lots of ideas, most of them very good. Fundamentally, though,
> there's the idea that this isn't really an "Inline" package, as in
> "(pre)compile this bit of native language in some other language-space and
> then make it available to my perl script". It's more of a "automatically
> build perl subroutines for me that make use of DBI". So maybe it's more
> of a DBIx::Inline::SQL or somesuch.
The first line of the Inline docs states this:
Inline - Write Perl subroutines in other programming
languages.
Although it can be argued whether or not SQL is a programming language, I
think
that using this definition your module could very much use the Inline
namespace.
Personnally that's how I see Inline. For me the "inlining" (and the
resulting abstraction)
is what it is all about.
I don't think what it is you are inlining should be relevant to using the
Inline namespace.
The fact of encapsulating something, automatically creating perl subs to use
that
something and make it easy for the user is enough for me. But that's just my
opinion.
But I think it's an interesting debate...
Cheers,
Patrick
