|Think about Loose Coupling|
Module naming issuesby dragonchild (Archbishop)
|on Oct 20, 2005 at 01:24 UTC||Need Help??|
dragonchild has asked for the
wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:
stvn and I decided to add a transparent persistence layer to Tree::Simple for work-related purposes. As most projects are wont to do, this ended up being a complete rewrite with better error-handling, a basic event model, transparent persistence to both a file and/or DB (or both simultaneously) and a straightened-out API. Because of the API changes (and cause stvn hates the name Tree::Simple), it was decided that this would be its own distro. And, thus the problems start.
My development names were "Forest" (for the distro) and "Tree"/"Tree::Binary" for the two trees I've implemented thus far. I obviously cannot upload with those names as Tree is owned by Schwern and Tree::Binary is owned by stvn. But, it's very likely that if you're using Forest, you haven't downloaded Tree (which hasn't been updated in years) or Tree::Binary (because it doesn't have all the really great features Forest does). And, it makes a lot more sense to call it "Tree" instead of "Forest::Tree" or "II::Tree", etc.
So, here's the idea stvn came up with - we call it Forest (containing the distro-level documentation, but no code), Forest::Tree, and Forest::Tree::Binary. (The persistence layer is already called Forest::Persist, with various subclasses from there.) And you will be able to do:
Does anyone have an opinion on this? What about other ideas? Neither stvn and I don't feel comfortable asking Schwern for "Tree" because it's a TLN with a ton of other modules underneath it. I know I'd be miffed if someone came along and took over a TLN right from under (over?) me, especially when their stuff had nothing to do with mine.
My criteria for good software: