My first impression, sorry, is that "Forest" is trying to be too cute. Who's going to search for a "Forest" module when they're looking for a tree data structure? And when I see "Forest::Tree", I think of forestry and the environment, not data structures. "Forest" winds up just being a vanity/brand, and doesn't convey anything about what the distribution does. The fact that you're thinking about aliasing is a sign that it's flawed in the first place. (And I know how you probably feel -- development names are tough to let go, it's easy to get attached to them through repeated exposure.)
Personally, I liked the name "Tree::Simple" -- it immediately stood out among all the tree modules. I'd prefer if you found something along those lines that conveyed what it does (i.e. the Noun::Adjective/Adverb style).
Tree::Persistant? Tree::Builder? Tree::Easy? Tree::Simpler? (The latter even conveys the connection to Tree::Simple but with the improved API and transparent persistance.)
-xdg
Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.
In reply to Re: Module naming issues
by xdg
in thread Module naming issues
by dragonchild
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |