On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 10:17:59PM -0700, Erick Calder wrote: > > Perhaps I'm too sentimental but I prefer names that are pronounceable. > > POEx is pretty pronounceable: POE-ex > > > POEx > > I like the brevity of this. my issue however, is that the implication is > that modules in that namespace are extensions... and I don't perceive > components as extensions... an extension is more or less an afterthough: > uh... we didn't think of this so let's extend the framework, whereas a > component is an integral part of a system, which I believe is more closely > aligned with the function of POE components. > > I also don't like PoCo, even though it's easy to say and writes nicely, > because I think everything POE related should be under that namespace. > > perhaps a better suggestion would be to create special namespaces for > internal stuff e.g. POE::Kernel and let everything else just hang off of POE > > e.g. > > POE::Player::Mp3 > POE::Client::IRC > POE::Server::HTTP > > but > > POE::Kernel::Child (or some such thing) > > - ekkis > > http://www.arix.com/ec
POE:: could be used, as long as there's a standard namespace layout for people to follow. The theory behind a second namepace: - It allows people to publish modules autonomously. - It avoids name collision between "core" POE and third-party components. - It implies a border between POE and all these things that must be installed separately. - Implies that all the modules have something in common. A standard namespace layout would solve the first two issues. Publishing and maintaining it would solve the third. -- Rocco Caputo - http://poe.perl.org/
