Christopher Hicks writes: > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Smylers wrote: > > > ... DBIx:: should be for things that are generally usable with DBI, > > where the "I" is independent ... > > I agree with Chris much more than Smylers here, but if we go along > with Smylers perspective for a minute then we need /some/ hierarchy > for "database-related things that aren't avertising they're using DBI > for some reason".
Why? There are several top-level namespaces on Cpan that are simply the names of some external software that the modules in that namespace work with. In particular, there are already many in the MySQL:: namespace: http://search.cpan.org/search?m=module&q=MySQL&s=1&n=20 It may not be a perfect namespace, but it certainly isn't terrible, it's unambiguous, and surely it's better to keep on using it for similar 'MySQL'-related modules than to put new ones elsewhere (or persuade all the existing ones to move)? > The more I think about it DBIx would seem to be the winning place for > this sort of thing. When I read Mark's message I realized his point is what I'd been wanting to say in the first place; so the more _I_ think about it, the more DBIx:: seems like a completely inappropriate place for this module! Smylers
