i just change the way the client work, it is gearman which is distributed by itself. also i didn't wrote code for the worker. | [reply] |
I'm confused. I thought you were looking for better names for Gearman::OO::Client and Gearman::OO::Job.
On second thought, though, Job or Task is better than Worker. Worker is what executes. The Job or Task is the work unit. Maybe that's what you meant.
Gearman calls them tasks, so
Distributed::Gearman::Client
Distributed::Gearman::Task
| [reply] |
Well, maybe the names are important, but secondary. What i will probably do is finish the development and use it whatever names they have.
The matter is: do you all think this can be useful for other? if so it could be a good thing if I'll put this on CPAN, but if none will need it then it will be just CPAN pollution.
Then, iff i will going to publish on CPAN, the name become important.
But i still don't understand why you suggest Distributed. I would describe this client implementation using words like async, simple or OO; but there is nothing in it which make things more distributed then the other client implementations.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
