On May 23, 2007, at 10:48 AM, John Siracusa wrote: > On 5/23/07 12:53 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote: >> On May 23, 2007, at 9:36 AM, John Siracusa wrote: >>> Does anyone have any good ideas for a namespace for module that >>> augment or >>> extend RDBO, but that are not part of the "official" RDBO >>> distribution? The >>> first thing that springs to my mind is: >>> >>> Rose::DBx::* >>> >> At first I really liked that, but then I read... >> >>> That'd be for both modules that are related to Rose::DB and >>> modules that are >>> related to Rose::DB::Object. >> >> Which would make it a bit awkward, I think, in the case of a >> Rose::DB derived file, and not an object file. > > How so? > >> My main worry is that Rose::DBx looks similar to Rose::DB > > Well, DBI did the DBIx thing, and Mason did the MasonX thing. I like > Rose::DBx:: more than RoseX::, but I could be persuaded. > >> Rose::Community >> Rose::Externals >> Rose::Contributed > > Those are all way too long :) > >> Rose::xDB might work too - it gets your original point across >> without looking too much like the real rose namespace. > > Yeah, that's not bad either. > > Other opinions? > > -John
i think Rose::DBx is fine, and Rose::DBx::TotallyRad and Rose::DBx::Object::TotallyRad seem clear enough what's what to me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Rose-db-object mailing list Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
