in reply to Re^2: Another Gearman perl module?
in thread Another Gearman perl module?

I'm confused. I thought you were looking for better names for Gearman::OO::Client and Gearman::OO::Job.

On second thought, though, Job or Task is better than Worker. Worker is what executes. The Job or Task is the work unit. Maybe that's what you meant.

Gearman calls them tasks, so
Distributed::Gearman::Client
Distributed::Gearman::Task

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Another Gearman perl module?
by oha (Friar) on Nov 17, 2009 at 14:31 UTC
    Well, maybe the names are important, but secondary. What i will probably do is finish the development and use it whatever names they have.

    The matter is: do you all think this can be useful for other? if so it could be a good thing if I'll put this on CPAN, but if none will need it then it will be just CPAN pollution.

    Then, iff i will going to publish on CPAN, the name become important.

    But i still don't understand why you suggest Distributed. I would describe this client implementation using words like async, simple or OO; but there is nothing in it which make things more distributed then the other client implementations.

[reply]
[d/l]

      Well, maybe the names are important, but secondary.

      You asked two questions. I only had an answer for one of them. I'm not sure what you want from me.

      i still don't understand why you suggest Distributed.

      Maybe I have it all wrong, but I thought the purpose of the module is assign work units to a distributed network.

      To me, OO is an awful name to me. It says nothing about the module. It might be worth mentioning if it *wasn't* object oriented. I might add that the other distro you mentioned also uses OOP.

[reply]

In Section Meditations