Re: Re: Re: Module RFC: Yet another object-persistence interface

So, XML::Parser::Lite has to do with XML::Parser? I don't think so ... this module is one that provides a Class::DBI-like interface, but does it in a simple manner. Hence, Class::DBI::Simple.

Now, I can understand your hesitation because XML::Parser can be dropped in for XML::Parser::Lite with no changes. This module cannot be replaced directly with Class::DBI without a problem. Interesting problem ...

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

The idea is a little like C++ templates, except not quite so brain-meltingly complicated. -- TheDamian, Exegesis 6

Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Module RFC: Yet another object-persistence interface

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Module RFC: Yet another object-persistence interface by perrin (Chancellor) on Sep 22, 2003 at 00:54 UTC
I don't agree. Class::DBI is not a generic term. It is a specific and well-known module. Anyone seeing Class::DBI::Lite on CPAN would reasonably assume that it had something to do with Class::DBI. No one complains about things like CGI::Simple because CGI is a truly generic term. Is it ethical for people to grab generic namespaces for things like CGI or Template? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't change the issue here. Personally, I think it would be better to have called XML::Parser::Lite something else, even XML::ParserLite, in order to keep it out of the same package namespace. Incidentally, I don't think Class::DBI could reasonably be called heavy.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Module RFC: Yet another object-persistence interface by Madams (Pilgrim) on Sep 25, 2003 at 01:56 UTC
Class::DBI is not a generic term. It is a specific and well-known module. Anyone seeing Class::DBI::Lite on CPAN would reasonably assume that it had something to do with Class::DBI. Ah yes... But didn't MJD prove: Newton::John::Olivia is unrelated to Newton::Issac ? I believe that I've attributed that correctly and didn't mangle the example to badly. ;P _________________ madams@scc.net `(__) (\/) /-------\/ / \| 666 \|\| * \|\|----\|\|` [download]	[reply] [d/l]


Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies.
	PerlMonks