Mark Stosberg wrote:
> What happens if an application is composed of 3 scripts and 3 new
> modules? Do the modules go into the modules directory and the scripts
> into the scripts directory?
No, that wouldn't make any sense. Unless, of course, the modules
have general applicability outside the c
"François Désarménien" wrote:
>
> I see your point of view. In fact, the current modules hierarchy is under the
> 'modules' directory, which means that we should only have _modules_ in the
> root namespace. Ideally, like we have a 'script' directory, we should have
> an 'application' directory.
François Désarménien writes:
> Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:28:18 -0500 (CDT)
> Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there any consensus in the Perl community on a namespace for apps?
> > Perhaps Apps::*?
>
> I'd rather prefer the singular form "App::" which seems more logical
> when I use _an_ a
François Désarménien wrote:
> Ideally, like we have a 'script' directory, we should have
> an 'application' directory.
>
> But the drawback is that this would require another maintainer, while creating
> a pseudo 'App' root namespace would let the current PAUSE engine process them
> without any f
Fri, 29 Jun 2001 08:54:46 -0400
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> François Désarménien wrote:
> > I think it's agood idea not to fragment too much the root namespace, and Apps
> > (or App) is generic enough for other applicative contributions.
>
> But that's exactly the problem: Apps:: is
François Désarménien wrote:
> I think it's agood idea not to fragment too much the root namespace, and Apps
> (or App) is generic enough for other applicative contributions.
But that's exactly the problem: Apps:: is wayy too generic to be
meaningful. We may as well put ALL modules under a Module
Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:28:18 -0500 (CDT)
Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any consensus in the Perl community on a namespace for apps?
> Perhaps Apps::*?
>
I'd rather prefer the singular form "App::" which seems more logical
when I use _an_ application...
François
Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:38:15 -0500
Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We could, alternatively, use Tracker. I like that cause its less typing.
>
> I prefer Apps::Tracker for being more descriptive.
>
So do I.
I think it's agood idea not to fragment too much the root namespace, and
> We could, alternatively, use Tracker. I like that cause its less typing.
I prefer Apps::Tracker for being more descriptive.
-mark
http://mark.stosberg.com/
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
> Does the application have a name?
We're just calling it the Mason Tracker.
> You could call it HTML::Mason::Tracker or something along those lines if
> it's part of Mason. Or you could do it like the Mon dist and use the name
> of the applicatio
Dave Rolsky [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>We are currently working on a web based task/bug tracking system that we'd
*>like to publicly release sometime in the near future. The system is
*>mostly Mason components plus some modules. The question is what namespace
*>the modules should occupy.
*>
*>
We are currently working on a web based task/bug tracking system that we'd
like to publicly release sometime in the near future. The system is
mostly Mason components plus some modules. The question is what namespace
the modules should occupy.
Is there any consensus in the Perl community on a n
12 matches
Mail list logo
