On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 12:21:02PM -0400, Daniel Staal wrote: > >Can anyone suggest me a better module name for this? > > Honestly, the name I'd want on that module is IO::Socket::INET. Fix > the whole problem, instead of just being the new best choice. (For > everyone who bothers to notice, and upgrade.)
I have considered on that, but the thing is that there's a close association between the socket domain and the module name here. There are many IO::Socket::$FAMILY modules on CPAN, and apart from the mixed 4+6ness of INET6, they all follow the pattern that their name matches the PF_* constant, minus the PF_ prefix. Then there's the issue that everyone's existing code presumes that ::INET addresses are always AF_INET; this will no longer hold if it changed. E.g. unpack_sockaddr_in will get upset given an AF_INET6. The advantage of taking a new module name with a compatible _subset_ of API, is that in most cases, that subset is sufficient; most people don't expect to unpack_sockaddr_in( $sock->sockname ) because they'll use the accessors. If it works for them, great; if not, they don't have to move over to using it. I'd find making a new module with mostly-compatible API much less prone to breaking existing stuff, than changing the very ingrained semantics of something existing. -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans leon...@leonerd.org.uk ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
