in reply to RFC: Module namespace suggestion

If it's really simple and totally compatible with DBI, why not submit it as a patch to DBI? That way, everyone gets to use your work instead of just those people who find it. I know that if it was in DBI, I'd use it. If it's in some other module, 10-1 I wouldn't be able to get it installed.
My criteria for good software:
  1. Does it work?
  2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: Module namespace suggestion
by izut (Chaplain) on Feb 14, 2007 at 16:27 UTC

    Thanks for your response. I think this could be included on DBI, but now it relies on SQL::Tokenizer to, well, extract tokens from a SQL query, but it is pure Perl and uses only regular expressions, so would be slow for most people.

    Maybe I could call it DBIx::NamedPlaceholder for instance, to people start using it, and then propose make it a patch into DBI.

    Would this be a good plan?

    Igor 'izut' Sutton
    your code, your rules.

[reply]
[d/l]
      That sounds completely reasonable. Alternately, you could called it DBIx::Placeholder::Named, but your solution is just fine.
      My criteria for good software:
      1. Does it work?
      2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
[reply]

        DBIx::Placeholder::Named is really fine. I'll refactor it soon to adapt the new name, then release it at CPAN.

        Thanks for your support.

        Igor 'izut' Sutton
        your code, your rules.

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Meditations