On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 12:02:00PM +0000, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 08:43:43AM +0100, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 21:36:32 -0500, "Kurt D. Starsinic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>said:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 06:17:22PM -0800, Gisle Aas wrote:
> > >> I have been experimenting with an interface to the UDDI registry and
> > >> uploaded it as UDDI-0.03. UDDI is described on www.uddi.org.
> > >> Do you want me to use any other module name?
> > >>
> > >> Current usage is something like this:
> > >>
> > >> use UDDI;
> > >>
> > >> my $list = UDDI::find_business(name => "a") || die $UDDI::err{message};
> > >> for my $b ($list->businessInfos->businessInfo) {
> > >> print $b->name, "\n";
> > >> }
> >
> > > I like to stay away from top-level namespaces. I've just taken a
> > > brief look at the website, but I think that Net::UDDI would be more
> > > suitable.
> >
> > Or Business::UDDI as quite a few people have objected to using Net::
> > as a bit basket.
>
> UDDI::* as I suspect other UDDI modules will arise sooner or later.
I suspect so as well. Deciding whether something merits a top level
name is tough, and ultimately I end up making a gut decision based on
how much buzz I hear about the technology. UDDI qualifies, based
on this somewhat dubious metric.
-Jon
