Re: Re: Re: Re: Module RFC: Yet another object-persistence interface

[perrin]

I don't agree. Class::DBI is not a generic term. It is a specific and well-known module. Anyone seeing Class::DBI::Lite on CPAN would reasonably assume that it had something to do with Class::DBI.

No one complains about things like CGI::Simple because CGI is a truly generic term. Is it ethical for people to grab generic namespaces for things like CGI or Template? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't change the issue here. Personally, I think it would be better to have called XML::Parser::Lite something else, even XML::ParserLite, in order to keep it out of the same package namespace.

Incidentally, I don't think Class::DBI could reasonably be called heavy.

[Madams]

Class::DBI is not a generic term. It is a specific and well-known module. Anyone seeing Class::DBI::Lite on CPAN would reasonably assume that it had something to do with Class::DBI.



Ah yes... But didn't MJD prove:

Newton::John::Olivia is unrelated to Newton::Issac ?

I believe that I've attributed that correctly and didn't mangle the example to badly. ;P
_________________
[e-mail]

              (__)
              (\/)
       /-------\/
      / | 666 ||
     *  ||----||