> You mean they're re-discovering hierarchical databases that were
> displaced by RDBMS? :-)
Heh. Yes. They've found that the best way to store heirarchical data
is in a heirarchy.
Anyway, thanks for responding. Repository:: is not a bad idea. I
think the work I'm currently doing would fall under the name
Repository::Simple at this point, though it might fit in better with
the ::Lite crowd better since the idea is pretty tightly bound up with
XML and ::Lite seems to be preferred there. That and its got quite a
few packages to be considered "simple."
At this point, I'm working on what I hope is a one-JAPH job in a month
or two in my spare time by rewiring File::System. It will then be a
functional Pure Perl implementation of some of the core ideas behind
JSR 170 Level 1, but the API will bear no particular resemblance.
Doing this suits my own nefarious purposes best.
I've done the overall design, gotten most of the tests written, and
I've rearranged and refactored much of the code, but I've got a long
way to go before all my tests pass.
Cheers,
Sterling
On 3/21/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> * Andrew & Terri Hanenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-26 11:05]:
> >2. If not (1), what's a good name? Content::Repository?
> >Something else?
>
> Something else, most definitely, simply on the grounds that
> Content:: is a less than self-describing TLNS. I wish I had a
> good suggestion, though. The concept is so generic that I think
> it will be hard to name well. I am thinking that Repository::
> should be the TLNS, but I dunno.
>
> >Another reason for me taking this seriously is because there are
> >some in the industry trying to hype this one on the level of
> >importance of the emergence of RDBMS in the 1970's.
>
> You mean they're re-discovering hierarchical databases that were
> displaced by RDBMS? :-)
>
> Regards,
> --
> #Aristotle
> *AUTOLOAD=*_;sub _{s/(.*)::(.*)/print$2,(",$\/"," ")[defined wantarray]/e;$1};
> &Just->another->Perl->hacker;
>
