(Sorry for my previous post, I had missed this thread) >>>>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:52:26 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Devine ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: >> Hi. >> >> Are you certain the name of the SysConfig module is all proper and >> well? I'm afraid SysConfig is much too generic, it tells almost nothing. >> Also, the module seems to be heavily specific to RedHat Linux, and as >> such, it should have *something* to that effect in its name, too. >> Linux::Config (if it is to be about more than RedHat), or RedHat::Config >> (you might want to let Randy J. Ray to know, [EMAIL PROTECTED], he is >> a very Perl-friendly RedHat representative) > Hi Jarkko, > All good points, however the main purpose behind the module is _not_ to > build a Kickstart file, nor is it specifically to write a configuration > file for Linux (although I can understand how one would be lead to that > conclusion). I had toyed around with Linux:: or possibly even RedHat::, > but it doesn't really do the module justice and I think ends up being > equally confusing. > What it really comes down to, is that there is no really good way right > now to describe the important bits of an operating system. Windows kind > of comes close with the concept of their registry, but it falls down flat > on its face for doing anything very useful. > The module itself wasn't meant to be specific to Linux. You should be > able to describe any bits of an operating system fairly easily by using > it, and it was my hope that people would come up with different class > libraries in the future for different OS's (and even different > installation methods). > It just so happens that RedHat's Kickstart file is fairly trivial to > describe, and plugs into the idea of a registry very easily. The same > goes for the XML class that I included as well. > I had toyed around with SystemConfiguration:: but then decided to > abbreviate it because the package names were getting ludicrously long. > As it is, I just wanted to get something out there (particularly since > someone might be able to use the Kickstart and XML classes), but there is > a lot of functionality still missing, such as being able to probe an > operating system to actually build the registry and do anything useful. > Any suggestions for naming schemes would be appreciated though, I'm not > tied to the name right now as it is. <overdraw type="evil"> Are you saying, the real code doesn't come close to the intent?</overdraw> If so, I'd still say, Linux:: or RedHat:: are appropriate. When the module grows and reaches the realm you are describing, there's still time to give it a better name. I'm not fond of SysConfig root namespace, such a module family deserves a real family name. -- andreas
