At 9:36 AM -0400 5/23/07, 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::* > >That'd be for both modules that are related to Rose::DB and modules that are >related to Rose::DB::Object. > >Anyone have any better ideas?
I have a suggestion that I would think superior, presented in generic terms. Rather than using FooX to indicate anything not part of the core distribution, the X suffix should be used instead for Foo related things that are not officially vetted by the Foo core developers. See, it is likely that the core developers of Foo have ideas in mind about what namespaces that a framework of modules built around Foo would have, and so if third parties have ideas for some extension that the Foo developers like and think would integrate into their framework well, they could grant them appropriate non-X namespaces for the extensions. So then the X namespace is mainly for third parties that are doing things unilaterally without consulting with the Foo developers. Take for example the DBI framework ... modules can get a DBI::* or DBD::* name if they are basically sanctioned as belonging there, and otherwise go in DBIx or something else. Though mind you DBI is somewhat a different case because it is very old and there are legacy issues to deal with. But by contrast things like Rose and many other projects don't have this kind of legacy and can more freely use non-X spaces. What I propose is the tactic that I'm using for my QDRDBMS framework. The core distro is kept small to the essentials, and I already have in mind a variety of other framework parts which are intentionally distributed separately. So people who come to me and want to make something which would fit into my conceived name hierarchy and/or convince me of their idea can get a QDRDBMS::* name endorsed by me, and otherwise I hope people will use QDRDBMSx::* or some such. Towards this end, I have actually sketched out in the QDRDBMS documentation (mainly the SeeAlso.pod) of what I have in mind, so people can be working more from a common starting place when figuring out names. Ideally, there wouldn't be too many x modules as hopefully there would be enough communication or forethought that things can be more integrated to good places. Fyi, see eg http://utsl.gen.nz/gitweb/?p=QDRDBMS;a=tree for that which I speak of. -- Darren Duncan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
