* > * > * ParseConfig::Rdist * > * > * > * > I'm happy with ParseConfig::Rdist. * > * > * > * > Shall I use that? * > * * > * Fine by me :) * > * > I had another idea.. How about Emulate::Rdist? * > * > That sounds better to my ear. * * It's not a question of sound. If the primary purpose of the module is to * emulate the behaviour of rdist then the name should reflect that. If it's * just to read rdist files then the name should reflect that. * * In this case perhaps it could be two modules. * * But an Emulate::* namespace doesn't appeal much. Many modules emulate * something. * * Perhaps Filesys::Rdist.
It does do both, but I see little point in making it two modules. I don't think it fits with Filesys:: as the modules that are there all deal with filesystems rather then the files in a filesystem. I would consider File::Rdist, but the module never actually uses rdist. Rather the purpose is to achieve the same ends using rsync. File::Rdist2Rsync? Rdist::Rsync? Rdist::Parse? I don't know. Maybe I should stick with ParseConfig::Rdist. Thanks, -Dave
