On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:33:01PM -0600, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>
> >I think I have a similar concern. Here's my own case: I use a custom
> >sub-class of CGI::Application that I base most of my web-applications
> >on. Eventually, I would like to distribute some of these on CPAN, with
> >several of them referring to the same custom sub-class itself.
> >
> >However, it don't think the sub-class module itself would be especially
> >interesting to others-- it might-- but it mostly seems like a set of
> >personal style choices about how I like to design web-applications.
> >If it didn't go under an Authors:: namespace, it seems like it would get
> >some other un-descriptive name like "CGI::Application::MarksSubClass".
>
> You could fully-document the helper module (and maybe make it more
> configurable?) I like this one the best, and maybe others who work in the
> same manner could benefit from it. Do you think it is possible to boil-down
> the "you-specific" parts of your module into a config file in your home
> directory? It would be interesting to see how this would work.
>
> You could inline all of the helper module functions at the end of your regular
> module (maybe a "dist" target in your makefile can automate this for you.)
I think some other people would probably find some of my
"personalizations" useful as well. I'm open to cleaning it up some as
you suggest.
Still that leaves the issue of naming it. It's still best described as
"a module for building CGI applications Mark's way". I could give it
some generic name like "CGI::Application::TurboCharge", but that seems
to be of limited usefulness.
What's a good way to name these kind of personalization modules? It's
these kind of cases that make "Authors::" begin to make sense.
Mark
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mark Stosberg Principal Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Summersault, LLC
765-939-9301 ext 202 database driven websites
. . . . . http://www.summersault.com/ . . . . . . . .
