perl-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: rfc: top level 2.0 CPAN modules naming
Date Tue, 26 Nov 2002 05:42:30 GMT
Doug MacEachern wrote:
> never intended the ModPerl:: namespace to be for third-party modules.
> why the change from Apache:: ?

The idea came from ModPerl::Registry, I thought that's why it was 
renamed from Apache::Registry in first place.

> as for the version number, Apache:: vs Apache2::, don't really see the 
> benefit.  one should just say 'use mod_perl 1.99' in

The benefit that I see is for CPAN searchers, where it's clear that the 
module is for 2.0 and not 1.0 from its name.

Another reason is when two modules with the same name can't be 
integrated under one roof, because of significant differences in used 
APIs. So when somebody refers to a module name it's clear which one he 
is talking about. e.g. I've a problem with Apache::Filter... is this 1.0 
  or 2.0?

But if nobody sees the benefit of this idea I'm dropping it.

> you don't see the Perl version number in modules names for example, but 
> 'use 5.008' or similar in the .pm

True, but that comes at a latter stage, once you try to install/use things.

> i don't have strong feelings about it though.

That's said we need to have a guidelines for 2.0 module writers, since 
they need to run in Makefile.PL to find mod_perl 2.0 files 
and they also might need to install the 2.0 3rd party modules under 
Apache2 sub-tree if such exists.

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message