in reply to Module Naming Advice

Rather than create a new module, I'd like to see the UUID modules merge and do the right thing. A lot off the time, authors are happy to do such a thing.

Failing that, choose the module name you wish either of these modules had, but don't let on that it's a wrapper. The users of the module (as opposed to the people who will look under the hood) don't care if it's a wrapper: they care about what it does for them. Make it so they use the same interface no matter which backend they have to use.

I don't think a generic wrapper to select different backends will be very useful for other situations. The logic and rules for selecting the modules will be too specialized, I think, and that's the part that does most of the work. People will want to program that part themselves to fit their situation.

Good luck :)

--
brian d foy <bdfoy@cpan.org>

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Module Naming Advice
by jk2addict (Chaplain) on Feb 22, 2005 at 21:32 UTC
    I've talked to Alexander a little. Hopefully I can provide him enough debugging output to work on getting Data::UUID to build under win32.
Re^2: Module Naming Advice
by jk2addict (Chaplain) on Feb 24, 2005 at 20:28 UTC

    Here was my other motivation to wrapper this stuff: Class::DBI::UUID.

    I really wanted to use this in my modules that were already based on Class::DBI and used uuids as primary keys, but I couldn't because of the lack of Data::UUID compile on win32.

    I agree, ::Wrapper isn't the greatest. If I can come up with a decent name, maybe eventually it can move from acting like a wrapper to slowly including the necessary bits from all variations. That's assuming of course that Data::UUID can't be fixed easily.