[Catalyst] Catalyst::Controller::Rose::Simple

Alexandre Jousset mid at gtmp.org
Fri Sep 21 07:29:26 GMT 2007

Peter Karman a écrit :
> Alexandre Jousset wrote on 9/20/07 11:41 AM:
>>     I'm sure I haven't your experience but for me (and also for Peter 
>> Karman, C::C::Rose author), the suffix "::Simple" (suggested by him) 
>> means "Take all that [what already exists, i.e. Catalyst and Rose] and 
>> make it simpler to use together".
> Actually, I had suggested you use ::Simple because in your original 
> email to me, (a) you had indicated you intended to use C::C::Rose, but 
> with an API similar to the FormBuilder philosophy, and (b) you had a 
> working title of C::C::Rose::FormManager, which I thought would be 
> misleading, since all the existing C::C::Rose::* classes also manage forms.

	First, I am sorry to have spoken for you. I thought we were OK on that...

> As you indicate below, you don't use any of the C::C::Rose code, design 
> or philosophy, so sharing the namespace seems misleading at the very least.
> So I'd prefer it if you used a difference namespace altogether. I 
> believe the latest best practice recommendation is to use the CatalystX 
> top-level space. Perhaps something like CatalystX::RHTMLOManager or 
> similar.

	Well... I don't mind to call it something else, so now I'm just (once 
again) looking for a good name. CatalystX::<Something>, ok. 
CatalystX::RHTMLOManager, NOK because it also deals optionally with RDBO 
and I would like to mention this fact, and I think the best way is to 
use the "Rose" name.

	CatalystX::RoseIntegrator? ;-)

	My only concern is that a search on CPAN with "Catalyst" and "Rose" 
should make it show up.
  -/ O \----------------------------------------
| |/ \|       Alexandre (Midnite) Jousset      |

More information about the Catalyst mailing list