I realize this smacks of the whole "class name does not imply relationship" argument, but AppConfig::DBI reads to my brain as a DBI persistence/store implementation of AppConfig data, not an AppConfig store of DBI-related information. Would DBI::AppConfig be just as ambiguous? Maybe, I'm not sure. But it would seem more intuitive to me, since you are using AppConfig to a DBI-suited end, to augment DBI.
--rjray
In reply to Re: RFC - AppConfig::DBI - support for DBI connection (info) via AppConfig
by rjray
in thread RFC - AppConfig::DBI - support for DBI connection (info) via AppConfig
by princepawn
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |