in reply to Re: Re: Re: Module RFC: Yet another object-persistence interface
in thread Module RFC: Yet another object-persistence interface

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.

  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Module RFC: Yet another object-persistence interface

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Module RFC: Yet another object-persistence interface
by Madams (Pilgrim) on Sep 25, 2003 at 01:56 UTC

    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 ||
     *  ||----||

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Meditations