Sean Quinlan writes: > On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 14:40, Mark Stosberg wrote: > > > I understood 'DBIx' to be "DBI extensions", which is not what this > > is. > > Correct. This module specifically uses tools provided with MySQL for > managing administration (mysqladmin and mysqldump), and does not use DBI > at all.
Right, so DBIx:: definitely seems like the wrong place for it. > However, there is no reason the basic concept could not be expanded > such that others could provide similar backup managers for other > database servers. Would Backup::MySQL be better, allowing for > Backup::PostgreSQL, etc. down the line? I don't think a generic Backup:: namespace makes much sense -- the set of things that can be backed up is not particularly meaningful. > Or should such things stay under specific server namespaces? Something like Database::Backup::MySQL would make sense. But there isn't really an existing Database:: namespace (there, unfortunately, some database things in the DB:: namespace, but that _ought_ to be kept for the debugger, so let's not make that problem worse) whereas there is a MySQL:: namespace. Yes, it might've been better if everything in MySQL:: had been called Database::MySQL::whatever. But if we get too idealistic over this, nothing would ever get named (or everything would be constantly being renamed). MySQL:: is in use, and isn't terrible[*0], so let's keep using it. [*0] Perhaps my standards are too low, or I'm too jaded from exceedingly badly named modules, if "not being terrible" is now my criteria for naming? Smylers
