>> Bundle::Installer sounds like a strange name to me. How does it fit
>> with the description in the module list:
>>
>> Bundle i Namespace reserved for modules collections ANDK
>>
>> Could you describe your intentions with it a little?
> The system consists of four modules and an exectuable, whose current names
> are:
> Installer::Base - base class for package modules
> Installer::Manifest - manifest object
> Installer::Rule - simple object for handling "rules" (a rule here is
> defined as a group of regexes which matches against a list of strings
> Installer::Ruleset - a simple object for handling a list of rules and
> actions associated with those rules
> rkit - executable perl script
If they are all called Installer::something, they are apparently not
called Bundle::something.
> Which is why I chose Bundle::Installer. I guess I'm unclear what
> is meant by "modules collections".
Ahh, I see. Whatever is called Bundle::something should be nothing
more than a list of modules. The idea of collecting modules by
referencing their name. Not by collecting the modules themselves
(the referenced modules are expected to be on CPAN anyway).
> Since these modules are meant to be used only with each other,
> perhaps they should they not be in the Bundle:: namespace?
A module should never be in the Bundle namespace.
> The internal name that we use for this package is simply 'rkit'.
> Perhaps App::Rkit would be better? I'll defer to better judgement
> here.
Looks more like Rkit::something, as I get the impression, this hasn't
much to do with "applications" either.
> To be honest, I'm not sure if this belongs in the modules section
> or not. The modules included are primarily there to support the
> rkit executable and are not extremely reuseable (I could see
> Manifest, Rule and Ruleset possibly being reused, but definitely
> not Base).
Hmmm. If all you need is a namespace you use within the rkit script, I
see no reason to register a namespace at all. If the code is not going
to be reused, it may even live in the "main" namespace as no conflict
will occur. OTOH if there is a tiny chance that one of the packages
grows beyond itself and becomes reuseable, you can work in the
pet_s_mart::rkit:: namespace and wait until the time is ripe.
> What it boils down to is this: suggestions are 100% welcome. It
> will probably be a couple of weeks anyway before the legal
> department gives the go ahead to upload it, so fire away.
It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with the script rkit, but
that it is rather a script or application than a module. There's
nothing wrong with that, just nothing to be registered in the module
list.
Regards,
--
andreas
