Thanks, everyone, for advice and encouragement. Eh-m, back to ground zero (been asked to drop the acronym), is PDF::Manipulate (rather, PDF::Manipulate::X) an OK name? (Contra: Verb as 2nd term? Too long? Negative connotations?) I considered "Parser", or "Wielder", or "ReadWrite", but like them even less. "Manipulate" is in the very 1st sentence on CAM::PDF pod page. In essence, I consider (and use) CAM::PDF as low level parser and manipulator with few high level methods, a tool for other developers to make (high level) tools.
Why "X"? PDF::CAMPDF::X would have eXtended CAM::PDF to serve as drop-in replacement in any existing code. PDF::CAMPDF::X2 would, in turn, subclass it but get rid of CAM::PDF::Node (blessed-for-no-reason constant-keys-set hashrefs) and use arrayrefs for "nodes". An exploration at first, how much of a performance boost that would add. Would be advised for new code, can't serve as drop-in CAM::PDF replacement. Because see e.g. line#82, and many more, in CAM::PDF::Annot accessing "{value}"; poking inside "nodes" is all over any code using CAM:PDF.
So then the idea now is to have PDF::Manipulate::X and PDF::Manipulate::X2 in the same distribution and kind of on "same depth level". Unless, that is, strongly advised not to. I'll think about how to properly and carefully document everything.
In reply to Re: Choosing namespace/name for (my first) CPAN module which is a sub-class of a well-known distribution
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Choosing namespace/name for (my first) CPAN module which is a sub-class of a well-known distribution
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |