In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Darren Chamberlain wrote:
> I've spent a few days putting together a little application that
> generates a database of RFCs. It uses XML::Parser to generate the
> database, and Class::DBI and DBD::SQLite to store and search the data.
>
> I've been calling it RFC::Index. It possibly falls more under the
> category of "application" than library, though the usage I had in mind
> for it was as a supplemental tool for a few other projects I have in the
> pipeline.
>
> I've attached the POD for the two main modules. My questions: Is this
> something that should/could go onto CPAN? And, if so, is the name
> appropriate? I realize that there is no RFC toplevel namespace right
> now, but that seems to be the most appropriate place for it.
>
> [...]
>
> NAME
> RFC::Index - Create and maintain a local searchable RFC database.
>
> SYNOPSIS
> use RFC::Index '/usr/local/share/rfc.db';
>
> my $rfc = RFC::Index->retrieve("RFC2822");
> my @rfc = RFC::Index->search("HTTP", "MIME");
I like your API but I'm not sure about putting it in RFC::*. How about
Search::RFC? (OTOH, Search::* seems to be used mostly for search engines.)
If your module fetched RFCs off the 'net I'd recommend WWW::Search::RFC.
Hmmm... If you're feeling ambitious, maybe you could add a simple
downloading mechanism using LWP::UserAgent, plus some config code so the
user can specify a URL template etc.
That might solve the namespace dilemma
and give us a nifty tool in the bargain. :-) OTOH, it does go against the
"do one thing well" principle if that's a conccern.
FWIW, there's already
one (unregistered) module in RFC::* (dist. name RFC_RFC822_Address-1.5) --
RFC::RFC822::Address - RFC 822 style address validation
Paul.
