[DBD-SQLite] Ideas for people on a recommended namespace forDBD::SQLite enhancement packages

Darren Duncan darren at darrenduncan.net
Fri Aug 14 19:06:38 GMT 2009

Another reason for the X convention is about reputation and credit, like with 
trademarks.  The reason is for being able to distinguish at a glance between 
official components made by or endorsed by the creators of the core project, 
from those by third parties that are not endorsed; by default, everything from a 
third party goes in X, or has a completely different name, unless the core 
creators give them explicit permission to use the non-X.  There is a common 
assumption that if someone has a project Foo::Bar, and then a module 
Foo::Bar::Baz exists, that the latter is created by who made the former, and if 
the latter is poor quality that could implicitly reflect badly on the creator of 
the first.  Also, more than just DBIx and MooseX use the convention. -- Darren 

Adam Kennedy wrote:
> The main reason for the X system is "A giant project that might
> potentially use all sorts of different names wants full control of
> this namespace, so don't trample on anything that might be a problem
> later."
> That isn't really the case here, the of all the different options
> SQLiteX can probably be ruled out.
> 2009/8/15 Dami Laurent (PJ) <laurent.dami at justice.ge.ch>:
>> I would vote for "SQLite::" ; the fact that there are already some modules in that namespace does not prevent people from creating new modules; on the contrary.
>> The DBD::SQLite:: namespace is specific for the driver, so I wouldn't recommend using that one.
>> Finally, one could think of "SQLiteX::" (in the spirit of DBIx or MooseX), but I'm not sure it's a good idea, because the frontier between "applications using SQLite" and "extensions to SQLite" is not very clear; so best to put everything in the same bag.

More information about the DBD-SQLite mailing list