-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 20 September 2002 14:20, you wrote: > Mark, > > It is good to see your modules in Meta::* being actively developed. However > I have some qualms about the whole project. > > I cannot find any documentation as to what functionality the module > hierarchy is supposed to provide. It's various subhierarchies do not seem > related in any particular way. > > Thus, I cannot see why they should occupy a namespace together, especially > a to lever namespace with such as 'Meta'. In fact the only reason for them > to be under 'Meta' is that there is a company with that name.
First Meta is indeed the name of the consulting company that I run but the name Meta is exactly right for what I need. I wanted a name without any connection to anything that people already know (like DB, XML, Development etc..). because Meta is a project to accomplish many tasks in an integrated mannger. The name fits right on. There is actually a connection between the modules and my ambitions for it are quite high. The idea is to develop a full suite of tools where by all information that these tools store will be in a SINGLE rdbms (with relations ofcourse). The tools will include: 1. A source configuration tool (with all source files and history inside the database). 2. A build manager (make replacement). 3. A web server. 4. An email client (all mails in the database ofcourse). 5. A mailing list manager. 6. Integrated web application frame work (OpenFrame). 7. A set of XML tools to aid. 8. Database Schema designer via xml description and inheritance. 9. Music manager (with all mp3 in the database). 10. Video manager (with all info in the database). 11. Book library manager. 12. Contacts database. 13. Personal time tracker. 14. Bug tracking system integrated into the source control system. 15. Chess game database. ..... [and much much more....] I know that this is ambitious but I think that in 2 years you'll be surprised. To get all of this done I submit a lot of bug reports to a lot of low level modules that I use (and a lot of feature requests). Since I'm designing a very big system I don't have time to wait for the feature requests to come in so I extend each module [Foo] with [Meta::Foo] which provides the extra features that I need. Once I learn that [Foo] has the feature I remove [Meta::Foo] and use [Foo] directly. That's why I don't want to put [Meta::Foo] in a namespace which is not under [Meta] (since I add the feature in a sub optimal way and I wouldn't want anyone to actually rely on my implementation because that's just a small nail in Meta and I won't neccessarily keep maintaining for long - I prefer the lower level modules to acquire these capabilities). The company Meta is my own (a small consulting company that I run) but the name strikes me as good for such an ambitious project. I don't think I am hurting anyone as I don't see anyone else using the name space or that has any qualms about it. In addition the name space is NOT registered in the full name space directory meaning that you can only get the package from my personal CPAN directory which means that I do not clobber regular CPAN development (If they wish to use the Meta namespace they do not need to fear colliding with me and only my users will suffer until I stop colliding with them). The name "Meta" has an english meaning and it is the exact meaning that I wish to convey: A package which pulls a lot of other packages together to create something which has never been seen before. > > If that is the case, the right place for it would perhaps be 'Acme::Meta' > or somesuch. > If anyone has problems with my name space I will change it. Do you have concrete problems with the name space NOW ?!? Did I collide with any other module you installed from CPAN ? Did you want to write a module with the [Meta::] prefix and found that you couldn't ? I don't really understand the issue. > But if they don't really belong together at all (they don't seem to), just > put the subhierarchies in the namespaces where they belong, and maintain a > bundle 'Bundle::Acme::Meta', 'Bundle::TheMetaCompany' or somesuch. Meta is a very large project and that's why they don't seem connected. Trust me - they are. > > Or better yet, just distribute the programs from the > http://www.cpan.org/scripts section and have them state in their > installation guides which modules are prerequisites. > Meta is by no means a script and I want the benefits of Makefile.PL and prerequisites (did you look at the Meta prerequisite list ?!? I want automatic resolution for that - the list is a 100 modules long). > > Sorry if this comes out a bit harsh; I really do appreciate that people > publish their work on CPAN, as that is the #1 reason why perl's so damn > wonderful. > > I just think it's important that CPAN be used as more than just the > workarea of every-and-all (however clever) perl developer. I'm not > advocating any particular quality control over CPAN (the only module I > maintain there is one of which I am particularly unproud), just a minimum > of respect for everybodys time and mindspace. I'm not using CPAN as a work area. I could keep Meta on my private HD (the contributions have been minimal so far). I don't need the 0.5 M space that Meta takes on CPAN. Trust me. I have 120 Gig hard drive here and the 0.5 M space is the least of my concern. The idea is to provoke other people to seeing the potential. Take a look at the internals. How am I hurting someones time ? did I make someone lose working time by using Meta as the name space ? If you can give me an example I will be happy to change my namespace. > > > regards, > > David Helgason ( http://www.uti.is/david) Regards, Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9iw6axlxDIcceXTgRAhutAKCVq+twnsdYawjcS7lHnY7tme0wXgCeNzx7 E3lFiRevACWGlFG7PY+w/tY= =Rhn0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
