Suggestion for module namespace assignment

polettix has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Update: Anyone interested into a more general discussion about names for modules could find Regrettable module names interesting.

Wise Monks,

here I come again to ask for your valuable time to examine a little issue of mine.

I recently wrote a module (named TrafficModeling::ErlangB ad interim) to perform various calculations based upon the Erlang-B formula.

It applies in various engineering dimensioning issues, allowing for example to evaluate the needed number of phone lines for an enterprise given some basic input such as the expected overall traffic (in Erlang) and the expected probability to reject a request (because all lines are busy).

I tried to ask for suggestions in comp.lang.perl.(misc|modules) (here and here) as per perlmodlib but my questions went deserted; this is why I dare bother you. I also discussed the topic with good monks eibwen and Zaxo (if my memory doesn't fail) in the CB but I have to admit that I remember very little - it was 4 AM for me. I definitively prefer to keep answers to meditate upon.

I'm also going to write similar modules that deal with formulas applicable in other contexts (e.g. Erlang-C and Engset), and I'd like to keep them in separate namespaces. I was thinking about putting them under Math, or dare to ask to open a new root like Engineering in which all these kind of stuff can be put.

Have you any comment/suggestion? Thanks in advance,

Update: I did it! Following brian_d_foy's suggestion, I registered the module as Math::Telephony::ErlangB and I uploaded it - just waiting it shows up! Thank you all for patience and brian_d_foy and eibwen for active support.

Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))')

Don't fool yourself.

Comment on Suggestion for module namespace assignment

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Suggestion for module namespace assignment by brian_d_foy (Abbot) on May 11, 2005 at 02:00 UTC
I recently approved Math::Telephony on the modules list, but I don't think it's shown up on CPAN. That namespace seems good to me. Maybe Math::Telephony::ErlangB ? "TrafficModeling" doesn't say anything about what sort of traffic you're dealing with, so I wouldn't use that as the top-level namespace. -- brian d foy <brian@stonehenge.com>	[reply]
Re^2: Suggestion for module namespace assignment by polettix (Vicar) on May 11, 2005 at 14:33 UTC
I personally like eibwen's suggestion about an `Engineering::` root namespace, but I'm not in the position to do much more than expressing my opinion. I'll wait your (or others) answer to his suggestion for a while, then I'll happily divert the module into `Math::Telephony::ErlangB`. BTW, is an updated copy of the approved modules list available somewhere (AKA "where do you 'write' your approvals")? Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))') Don't fool yourself.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Suggestion for module namespace assignment by brian_d_foy (Abbot) on May 11, 2005 at 18:02 UTC
Engineering:: isn't a very good choice. You're making too much of an assumption about what people are doing. A bunch of modules together might solve an engineering problem, but they should also be general enough to be used for other things too. You can use the "Register Namespace" form on PAUSE to request a namespace approval. -- brian d foy <brian@stonehenge.com>	[reply]
Re: Suggestion for module namespace assignment by eibwen (Friar) on May 11, 2005 at 04:45 UTC
I like the notion of Engineering:: (as discussed in the CB), however the existing Telephony:: namespace may be more appropriate. To extend the OP, what is involved in the creation of a new top-level namespace? The potential offerings for Engineering:: (at least those I'm aware of) are sparse currently: frodo72's modules Mohr's Circle Solver Engineering CGI Collection I may have omitted a few modules (CPAN searches return hundreds of "engine" modules; google didn't differentiate between engineering and "software engineering"), but I'd like to see the collection grow and become substantive. UPDATE: For clarification, during the previous conversation in the CB, a significant portion was devoted to exploring the viability of the Engineering:: namespace, specifically Engineering::Telephony::ErlangB.	[reply]