On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 06:58:48PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote: > Specifically, while Perl itself does not make any implications that > "Foo" is related to "Foo::Bar" or "Foo::Bar::Baz", I would appreciate > it if the official module list recognized "Rosetta::*" as a reserved > name space hierarchy which I control.
This is easily achieved by making your intention well-known on the
modules@ list, as you have done now, so when future requests on
Rosetta::* crops up, we can inform the submitter to get in contact with
you first.
> By contrast, if anyone wants to make unofficial extensions to the
> hierarchy, I recommend naming the module something outside of that
> namespace. For example, they could use a common prefix of
> "RosettaX::*".
Sure; you can clearly indicate this wish in the Rossetta documentation.
> 1. Given that it is normal CPAN Module List policy that frameworks
> each have their own self-named name space rather than using a generic
> space like "CGI" or "Text", is it implicitely recognized already that
> any modules whose names start with the module name in the form
> "FrameworkName::*" are under the control of the framework author, or
> is it assumed that all names are free for all for new modules by
> default if the name describes the module's purpose?
According to my understanding, the author that proposes the original
FrameworkName::* do have a socially-accepted control over the namespace
under that toplevel. However, this only regulates the official module
list, and does not impede on uploading of off-list modules.
> 2. If control is not implicitely recognized, what are the best and/or
> most authoratative ways to make it known that I would like people to
> speak with me first before uploading a module whose name is
> "Rosetta::*"?
The most authoratative way is to state it clearly and strongly in
Rosetta's README and documentation, which I assume would've been read
by anybody working on Rosetta::* extensions.
> 3. Are there any plans for the future that would make registering a
> framework for CPAN as easy as an individual module? For example, if
> someone wanted to register a "Foo" framework, then they would only
> have to upload modules like "Foo::Bar" and "Foo::Baz", which share a
> prefix of the framework name, but they would not need to include an
> actual module "Foo" if that module would have no purpose.
You can already do this by registering the toplevel namespce first.
> I think that implementing this idea would require an update to the
> CPAN indexing mechanism, so that if someone clicked on a registered
> module/framework name in the main directory, it would show a module
> listing for the framework, or otherwise a file specified in a manifest
> or something, if there is no individual module with the name of the
> framework. Is this feasable, or would it be beyond what CPAN is
> intended to be doing?
This is already the case on search.cpan.org. For example, whilst there
is no I18N.pm around, one can nevertheless click on
http://search.cpan.org/modlist/Internationalization_Locale/I18N
and see all modules that have the I18N prefix.
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
