Change in module naming conventions
Hi everyone, This has already been posted on the dev list, but with no replies (however previous feedback has been positive to this regard), so I'll pass it through here for some feedback before going on with it. To find out how the new namespaces would look, I have gone through the process of categorizing all mod_perl modules found on CPAN (by searching for the Apache:: prefix). What I came to was this: http://users.skynet.be/pereinar/mod-perl/modules.txt NOTE: I am *not* suggesting we rename all existing Apache:: modules, that issue has been raised many times before, and is clearly impractical. This list is only to get an idea of what categories could possibly be needed. Think of it as a way of wrapping my mind around what is already here. From this, and some comments from other people, I have come to a set of Module naming guidelines, which I just placed online for your perusal: see here: http://users.skynet.be/pereinar/mod-perl/products/apache-modules.html#Module_Naming_Conventions Some questions I got which I'm not too sure of: - I created the Apache::Util:: namespace. However, one person thought the Persistent:: namespace to be too specific, and would prefer to rename Apache::Util:: to something like ::Misc, ::Lib, ::Extensions or ::Addons, and add the Persistent:: modules there. What do you think? - I originally had Apache::Auth::Authen, ::Authz and ::Access, but Robin Berjon told me he preferred to have the 4 as top-level namespaces. What do people think? -- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change in module naming conventions
On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 09:29 AM, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote: - I created the Apache::Util:: namespace. However, one person thought the Persistent:: namespace to be too specific, and would prefer to rename Apache::Util:: to something like ::Misc, ::Lib, ::Extensions or ::Addons, and add the Persistent:: modules there. What do you think? I like Apache::Util, and don't have a problem with Apache::Util::Persistent. Makes sense to me. - I originally had Apache::Auth::Authen, ::Authz and ::Access, but Robin Berjon told me he preferred to have the 4 as top-level namespaces. What do people think? I agree with Robin. David -- David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394 http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change in module naming conventions
At 18:38 27.08.2002, David Wheeler wrote: On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 09:29 AM, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote: - I created the Apache::Util:: namespace. However, one person thought the Persistent:: namespace to be too specific, and would prefer to rename Apache::Util:: to something like ::Misc, ::Lib, ::Extensions or ::Addons, and add the Persistent:: modules there. What do you think? I like Apache::Util, and don't have a problem with Apache::Util::Persistent. Makes sense to me. It's actually Apache::Persistent, because the persistence modules in it have big differences from the Apache::Util modules. -- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change in module naming conventions
On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 09:46 AM, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote: It's actually Apache::Persistent, because the persistence modules in it have big differences from the Apache::Util modules. Oh. So what's the complaint about Apache::Util:: ? David -- David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394 http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change in module naming conventions
- nick
Nick Tonkin {|8^)
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
- I originally had Apache::Auth::Authen, ::Authz and ::Access, but Robin
Berjon told me he preferred to have the 4 as top-level namespaces. What do
people think?
I'm in favor of your approach. I have it like that in my
stuff. Auth::Auth, Auth::Authz, and Auth:: Access.
- nick
Nick Tonkin {|8^)
Re: Change in module naming conventions
At 18:59 27.08.2002, David Wheeler wrote: On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 09:46 AM, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote: It's actually Apache::Persistent, because the persistence modules in it have big differences from the Apache::Util modules. Oh. So what's the complaint about Apache::Util:: ? Not having the Persistent:: modules in it. And if it would have them in it, Apache::Util wouldn't necessarily be a correct name. But I think we'll keep Apache::Persistent and Apache::Util as is. -- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change in module naming conventions
Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I came to was this: http://users.skynet.be/pereinar/mod-perl/modules.txt Looks good, overall. I like the Apache::Framework:: namespace :) Some questions I got which I'm not too sure of: - I originally had Apache::Auth::Authen, ::Authz and ::Access, but Robin Berjon told me he preferred to have the 4 as top-level namespaces. What do people think? What's the difference between Apache::Auth and Apache::Authen ? They both seem to have authentication handlers. -- James Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED], 979-862-3725 Texas AM CIS Operating Systems Group, Unix
Re: Change in module naming conventions
At 20:14 27.08.2002, James G Smith wrote: Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I came to was this: http://users.skynet.be/pereinar/mod-perl/modules.txt Looks good, overall. I like the Apache::Framework:: namespace :) same; just shows how many there are. Some questions I got which I'm not too sure of: - I originally had Apache::Auth::Authen, ::Authz and ::Access, but Robin Berjon told me he preferred to have the 4 as top-level namespaces. What do people think? What's the difference between Apache::Auth and Apache::Authen ? They both seem to have authentication handlers. There are modules that do Authen+Authz, and some that incorporate general functions related to authentication and authorization. These go into ::Auth. The Authentication handlers go into Authen, as well as other modules *only* related to _authentication_. -- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change in module naming conventions
Nick Tonkin wrote:
- nick
Nick Tonkin {|8^)
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
- I originally had Apache::Auth::Authen, ::Authz and ::Access, but Robin
Berjon told me he preferred to have the 4 as top-level namespaces. What do
people think?
I'm in favor of your approach. I have it like that in my
stuff. Auth::Auth, Auth::Authz, and Auth:: Access.
But Authentication, Authorization and Access aren't all Auth. May be
using Apache::AAA:: as in httpd-2.0/modules/aaa/ ?
__
Stas BekmanJAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide --- http://perl.apache.org
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: Change in module naming conventions
* Stas Bekman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28 Aug 2002 12:54]: Nick Tonkin wrote: [...] I'm in favor of your approach. I have it like that in my stuff. Auth::Auth, Auth::Authz, and Auth:: Access. But Authentication, Authorization and Access aren't all Auth. May be using Apache::AAA:: as in httpd-2.0/modules/aaa/ ? I'd have to favour them being in a second-level namespace rather than a top-level one. If they provide Apache related handlers, the Apache handler modules should be in Apache:: (or ModPerl::, Apache2:: whatever; I'm going to have to look up the new naming convention there). Generic authentication stuff should probably belong in the namespace of the appropriate protocol. (e.g. Net::LDAP::Authenticate, used by Apache::AAA::NetLDAP). But Apache specific stuff should be in an Apache related namespace. (of course, now you'll all say that the 'toplevel' thing mentioned previously was relative to Apache::. Hrm.) cheers, -- Iain.
Re: Change in module naming conventions
On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 10:54 PM, Stas Bekman wrote: But Authentication, Authorization and Access aren't all Auth. May be using Apache::AAA:: as in httpd-2.0/modules/aaa/ ? Please, no more too-clever TLAs. Have we learned nothing from LWP? :) -John
