Re: RFC: Module namespace suggestion

If it's really simple and totally compatible with DBI, why not submit it as a patch to DBI? That way, everyone gets to use your work instead of just those people who find it. I know that if it was in DBI, I'd use it. If it's in some other module, 10-1 I wouldn't be able to get it installed.

My criteria for good software:

Does it work?
Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Comment on Re: RFC: Module namespace suggestion

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: Module namespace suggestion by izut (Chaplain) on Feb 14, 2007 at 16:27 UTC
Thanks for your response. I think this could be included on DBI, but now it relies on SQL::Tokenizer to, well, extract tokens from a SQL query, but it is pure Perl and uses only regular expressions, so would be slow for most people. Maybe I could call it `DBIx::NamedPlaceholder` for instance, to people start using it, and then propose make it a patch into DBI. Would this be a good plan? Igor 'izut' Sutton your code, your rules.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: RFC: Module namespace suggestion by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Feb 14, 2007 at 18:33 UTC
That sounds completely reasonable. Alternately, you could called it DBIx::Placeholder::Named, but your solution is just fine. My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply]
Re^4: RFC: Module namespace suggestion by izut (Chaplain) on Feb 14, 2007 at 18:37 UTC
`DBIx::Placeholder::Named` is really fine. I'll refactor it soon to adapt the new name, then release it at CPAN. Thanks for your support. Igor 'izut' Sutton your code, your rules.	[reply] [d/l]


more useful options
	PerlMonks