So, XML::Parser::Lite has to do with XML::Parser? I don't think so ... this module is one that provides a Class::DBI-like interface, but does it in a simple manner. Hence, Class::DBI::Simple.
Now, I can understand your hesitation because XML::Parser can be dropped in for XML::Parser::Lite with no changes. This module cannot be replaced directly with Class::DBI without a problem. Interesting problem ...
------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. The idea is a little like C++ templates, except not quite so brain-meltingly complicated. -- TheDamian, Exegesis 6 Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified. | [reply] |
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.
| [reply] |
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
_________________
madams@scc.net
(__)
(\/)
/-------\/
/ | 666 ||
* ||----||
| [reply]
[d/l] |