> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:59:03 -0600 "Wiggins d Anconia" wrote: > +------------------ > | I'll add another. I think at the very least POE (with the 'E') needs to > | stay intact. I know the "chatting" convention has been to use 'PoCo', > | but to keep the two related I think the full 'POE' spelling needs to be > | included. The 'x' form definitely aligns well with the DBI -> DBIx > | pre-existing example. > +------------------ > > Perhaps I'm too sentimental but I prefer names that are pronounceable. > PoCo has a high pronounce-ability. As does POE::Co. POEx seems to be just > a capitulation to some week previous art. The most useful of the > DBI extensions are not even in the DBIx space. Class::DBI for example. > We have an opportunity to avoid doing something that is just mundane. > Lets not miss it only to adhere to some perceived convention. > > -- > Chris Fedde > >
Possibly I should put in my earlier $.02, I'm not convinced shortening the name or moving them out of the POE namespace is compelling at all. As for typing or the name length, I hate that as a reason to begin with, and personally I don't think 'Co' is very descriptive or a good abbreviation of 'Component' (especially for non-english speakers), in conversation it is fine, but as a naming convention used in a standardization movement going forward I think it would be a poor choice. Just because the most useful aren't in the DBIx space doesn't mean, IMHO, that it wasn't a good attempt at a convention. There is also a chance that had the DBIx come about sooner they would be. I would also argue the opposite, lets not do something just to avoid being 'mundane' *especially* when we are talking about defining a convention (or standard). Having said all of that, I don't want to sound like I a) have much influence, b) really feel that strongly either way, I am just happy there is some discussion about making the components more object based and somewhat conventionalized (word?). http://danconia.org
