On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Stevan Little <stevan.lit...@iinteractive.com> wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Dan Horne wrote: > >> On 17 June 2010 08:51, Chris Prather wrote: >> >>> On Jun 16, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Dexter Tad-y wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Stevan, >>>> >>>> Can you suggest an alternative namespace for this? I'll try to come up >>> >>> with another name for the project. >>>> >>> >>> What's wrong with just DataMapper? >>> >>> -Chris >>>> >>> >> This raises something that I've been thinking about lately. When can one >> use >> a Top Level namespace? I've written a Moose-based app - not a module - >> which >> I think others might be interested in, but haven't submitted it to CPAN >> because it doesn't use the TopLevel::SubLevel convention. But neither does >> Catalyst or Dancer or Mojolicious or ..... etc.... What are the >> conventions/rules around this? > > Some people frown upon any top-level namespaces, most people don't really > care. Often times it comes down to the find-ability of a name. > > Meaning if your module provides a class system similar to Perl 6 don't call > it something stupid that no one will ever find, like Moose.
Basic rule of thumb is "Be Respectful". The module hierarchy rose to help stop the problem that I see in the Ruby world of "What the hell is that Frobbing thing called again?" Bot::ApplesToApples is obviously some kind of IRC bot for playing a card game, Adam is less obviously a IRC bot framework. In Ruby you have Merb, Sinatra, Rails, Camping, Ramze, Vintage, Hayclon, Nitro/Og, Wuby, Ruby WAF, and webby (to name a few) ... guessing that they're all related under the heading "Web Framework" is an exercise left to the psychic. The problem is that if you go the other direction you end up with Web::Transaction::Framework::ObjectModel::GUI and people end up having to call it WTF-OMG on IRC. -Chris -Chris
