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

Jonathan Yu jonathan.i.yu at gmail.com
Fri Aug 14 22:59:32 GMT 2009


On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Darren Duncan<darren at darrenduncan.net> wrote:
> 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 Duncan
I would hope that people make more of a distinction there. Many times
people choose to use a namespace because it 'fits' appropriately
there. For example there was a neat module, Env::Sanctify, that Chris
Williams (BingOS) produced. I then subclassed that and added some
features to another module, Env::Sanctify::Auto. Though they share a
common prefix, they're not produced/maintained/etc by the same person.

Chris is a brilliant coder; I should hope that people don't take my
code and make judgments about his. It wouldn't be fair to either of
us, really.

The fact is open source is the same as anything else -- you're always
going to have people that complain about things and blame the wrong
people, since they haven't done enough research. It's unfortunate, and
something we should work to some extent to avoid, but I don't think
using the same namespace would qualify as that.

That said, I agree completely with Adam Kennedy's analysis below.
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> DBD-SQLite mailing list
> DBD-SQLite at lists.scsys.co.uk
> http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbd-sqlite

More information about the DBD-SQLite mailing list