On 07/14/2010 11:27 PM, Jesse Luehrs wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:31:26PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
I would suggest that as a better distinction - if the *API* is
fundamentally tied to Moose, then delivering to a MooseX:: namespace is
much more acceptable. If the API is not Moose-specific, then it should
not be.
I disagree here - this would imply that anything written as a role could
go under MooseX (since roles don't exist outside of Moose), and that's
pretty wrong in my opinion. I pretty much agree with Dave here (and I
think that a reasonable low bar (necessary, but not sufficient) is that
it explicitly touches a metaclass somewhere, although I haven't put very
much thought into whether that's reasonable or not).
-doy
I would argue that "MooseX" is intended to mean "Moose Extensions,"
which should be interpreted "Modules that extend the functionality of
Moose."
-Sir
