Just out of curiosity - what was your main motivation for writing
another MARC module?
In what ways does your distribution differ from MARC::Record?
Moose Object-Oriented code reusability. I can clearly (hope so)
distinguish Marc record manipulation, parsing, converting, formatting,
reading
On 10/11/10 11:59, Bill Birthisel wrote:
> 3. There is not really much of a problem (for users) with long names. It
> appears MooseX:: is currently in common use on CPAN - so I would
> recommend MooseX::MARC. That appears to be to clearest choice and the
> one that fits the current naming patterns
A couple of questions and comments (some left over from the much earlier
conversion from MARC.pm to the MARC::Record family):
1. Do you ever expect someone to use both your modules and MARC::Record
at the same time? If so, you need to be extra careful about name
overlaps.
2. MARC::Record also han
It looks to me as if MooseX is used exclusively for extensions to the Moose
system itself, not random modules that happen to use Moose.
On 11/10/10 7:59 AM, "Bill Birthisel" wrote:
3. There is not really much of a problem (for users) with long names. It
appears MooseX:: is currently in common u
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:01:17PM +0530, Saiful Amin wrote:
> I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
> Biblio::Isis.
Just a quick note: There is MARC::Fast[1] which should be named
Biblio::MARC because they share same API from end-user perspective.
However, it was
I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
Biblio::Isis.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Dueber, William wrote:
> It looks to me as if MooseX is used exclusively for extensions to the Moose
> system itself, not random modules that happen to use Moose.
>
> On 11/10/10
Just a quick note: There is MARC::Fast[1] which should be named
Biblio::MARC because they share same API from end-user perspective.
However, it was written before Biblio::Isis, so it ended up in wrong
place.
I would prefer to have MooseX in name, because if I'm using Moose, I
don't really care
I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
Biblio::Isis.
Biblio::Marc sounds good to me.
Thanks for your feedback.
A couple of questions and comments (some left over from the much earlier
conversion from MARC.pm to the MARC::Record family):
1. Do you ever expect someone to use both your modules and MARC::Record
at the same time? If so, you need to be extra careful about name
overla
I can't really comment on the namespace issue, but I do appreciate the
fact that this was written as a Moose module. That makes it much more
traditionally OO friendly, extensible, and if required, secure. When I
used Marc::Record more extensively, it was a favorite. I've worked on
several pro
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:04 AM, Frédéric DEMIANS wrote:
>I'm not very comfortable with this library naming. Its purpose is very similar
>to MARC::Record and it is named 'Marc' and Marc::etc.
>Do you think, especially those managing MARC::Record, that it could be
>confusing and should b
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Saiful Amin wrote:
> I suggest Biblio::MARC. There's a ISIS parser in the the family named
> Biblio::Isis.
Biblio:: strikes me the wrong way -- MARC is used for more than just
bibliographic records, strictly speaking. I'd like Bryan's suggestion
of MARC::Moo
Thanks all for your suggestions. I have to choose another name for sure.
Marc::Moose seems to be a reasonable choice. But I'm very tempted by a
shorter option: MarcX, MarcX::Record, MarcX::Parser,
MarcX::Reader::Isis, etc. Any objection?
13 matches
Mail list logo
