You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modperl@perl.apache.org by Enrico Sorcinelli <e....@pisa.iol.it> on 2003/07/01 11:23:00 UTC
Re: [RFC] web-messaging application for mod_perl
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:57:00 -0700
Adi Fairbank <ad...@adiraj.org> wrote:
> Apache::WebMessaging
>
> I am about ready to release an intraserver web-messaging application for
> mod_perl. A brief description of the app follows; I'd like to hear some
> comments from the mod_perl/Perl/P5EE community on:
You could look about Apache::* modules naming conventions:
http://perl.apache.org/products/apache-modules.html#Module_Naming_Conventions
Apache::App::WebMessaging namespace could be a right place :-)
by
- Enrico
Re: [RFC] web-messaging application for mod_perl
Posted by Adi Fairbank <ad...@adiraj.org>.
On, or in the near vicinity of Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:47:13 -0500
James G Smith <JG...@TAMU.Edu> has thus written:
> Adi Fairbank <ad...@adiraj.org> wrote:
> >Here are the possibilities:
> >
> > 1 Apache::WebMessaging
> > 2 Apache::App::WebMessaging
> > 3 Apache::SomeOtherUniqueName (e.g. ServerMessaging, or UserMessaging, or
> >SystemMessaging)
> >
> >I personally prefer 1 or 2, so if there are no serious objections, I'll pick
> >one of those. Let me know which you like the best.
>
[...]
>
> From what I can see from your description and a brief look at some of
> the code, you are doing a small portion of what web messaging can
> mean: customer to customer, store and forward messaging.
>
> Because you don't cover all the possibilities (and it would be
> unreasonable to expect anyone to do so), I would discourage using
> such a generic name.
>
[...]
>
> Having unique names like these helps in several ways. First, they
> don't preclude others from entering the same `market,' which can be
> seen as part of the TMTOWTDI tradition in Perl. Second, they serve
> to brand the application. If you give a talk about Web Messaging,
> what do people expect? We're back to the survey above. On the other
> hand, a talk about a particular name, such as Apache::App::Mercury,
> might let people know more quickly what you are wanting to discuss.
Ok, I'm sold. Now I get the reason for not using such a generic name.
In fact, I really like your suggestion Apache::App::Mercury. If you don't mind,
I'll use that name! Do you mind?
"Mercury the swift messenger of the ancient gods.
The Greek god Hermes (the Roman Mercury) was the god of translators and
interpreters. He was the most clever of the Olympian gods, and served as
messenger for all the other gods. He ruled over wealth, good fortune, commerce,
fertility, and thievery.
Among his personal favorite commercial activities was the corn trade. He was
also the god of manual arts and eloquence. As the deity of athletes, he
protected gymnasiums and stadiums."
(http://www.eso.org/outreach/eduoff/vt-2004/mt-2003/mt-mercury-mythology.html)
> Finally, you might want to change the version from 0.80pre1 to
> 0.80_01 -- CPAN might get confused by the first format.
Will do!
Cheers,
-Adi
Re: [RFC] web-messaging application for mod_perl
Posted by John Saylor <jo...@worldwinner.com>.
hi
( 03.07.14 20:14 -0700 ) Adi Fairbank:
> ( I wouldn't want to have any piece of software named after me... just
> my personal style. Software lives for too long, especially open
> source. It would still be called that long after I'm dead. )
don't be too sure. no one may call it anything at all in about 6 months
...
> Here are the possibilities:
what about
Apache::Messaging::Web
to leave room for other messaging modules to share this namespace
[::Pager or ::Fax ...]
--
\js
Re: [RFC] web-messaging application for mod_perl
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Adi Fairbank wrote:
> On, or in the near vicinity of Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:49:58 +0300
> Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org> has thus written:
>
>
>>Probably the best bet is to give it some cool unique name, like
>>Apache::AdiChat and then you are all set, since you are not going to take over
[...]
> What's wrong with "WebMessaging" ? Do you foresee that interfering with some
> future software in the Apache:: namespace, or is it just too generic? I thought
> it was a good name since it accurately describes what it is: not webmail, not
> instant messaging, but web messaging. (basically, it's like those message boxes
> you get on a stock trading website when you login to your account)
James has gone into a detailed reply why this could be a bad idea. I'd just
add that it's very hard to choose a good name for a module. And it seems that
unique k001 names never have such problems.
Perhaps you can have a unique name for your application and in the future you
will extract a framework from it, making your app use it and allowing other
apps to do the same. So with time you will see whether Apache::WebMessaging is
a good name and whether it fits well into the scope of what it's supposed to do.
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: [RFC] web-messaging application for mod_perl
Posted by Adi Fairbank <ad...@adiraj.org>.
On, or in the near vicinity of Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:49:58 +0300
Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org> has thus written:
>
> Probably the best bet is to give it some cool unique name, like
> Apache::AdiChat and then you are all set, since you are not going to take over
>
> any future framework/namespaces...
>
Well, I don't like that name, but I do get what you mean. ( I wouldn't want to
have any piece of software named after me... just my personal style. Software
lives for too long, especially open source. It would still be called that long
after I'm dead. )
What's wrong with "WebMessaging" ? Do you foresee that interfering with some
future software in the Apache:: namespace, or is it just too generic? I thought
it was a good name since it accurately describes what it is: not webmail, not
instant messaging, but web messaging. (basically, it's like those message boxes
you get on a stock trading website when you login to your account)
Here are the possibilities:
1 Apache::WebMessaging
2 Apache::App::WebMessaging
3 Apache::SomeOtherUniqueName (e.g. ServerMessaging, or UserMessaging, or
SystemMessaging)
I personally prefer 1 or 2, so if there are no serious objections, I'll pick one
of those. Let me know which you like the best.
-Adi
Re: [RFC] web-messaging application for mod_perl
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Adi Fairbank wrote:
> On, or in the near vicinity of Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:23:00 +0200
> Enrico Sorcinelli <e....@pisa.iol.it> has thus spoken:
>
>
>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:57:00 -0700
>>Adi Fairbank <ad...@adiraj.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apache::WebMessaging
>>>
>>>I am about ready to release an intraserver web-messaging application for
>>>mod_perl. A brief description of the app follows; I'd like to hear some
>>>comments from the mod_perl/Perl/P5EE community on:
>>
>>You could look about Apache::* modules naming conventions:
>>
>>http://perl.apache.org/products/apache-modules.html#Module_Naming_Conventions
>>
>>Apache::App::WebMessaging namespace could be a right place :-)
>>
>
>
> According to the asterisk note below Apache::App:: "However, if you are
> planning a substantial framework with many inter-related modules, you should
> probably go with a top-level namespace outside of Apache::."
>
> This app already has 7-8 inter-related modules, though I would not call it a
> substantial framework. In fact it requires you to already have your own
> application framework setup in order to use it. It's basically a plug-in
> application for your existing mod_perl framework.
>
> I could rename it to just WebMessaging:: but it is specifically designed for
> mod_perl, which is why I think it should go in Apache::.
>
> Also, I noticed there are currently no Apache::App:: modules. Should this be
> the first??
Probably the best bet is to give it some cool unique name, like
Apache::AdiChat and then you are all set, since you are not going to take over
any future framework/namespaces...
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
Re: [RFC] web-messaging application for mod_perl
Posted by Adi Fairbank <ad...@adiraj.org>.
On, or in the near vicinity of Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:23:00 +0200
Enrico Sorcinelli <e....@pisa.iol.it> has thus spoken:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:57:00 -0700
> Adi Fairbank <ad...@adiraj.org> wrote:
>
> > Apache::WebMessaging
> >
> > I am about ready to release an intraserver web-messaging application for
> > mod_perl. A brief description of the app follows; I'd like to hear some
> > comments from the mod_perl/Perl/P5EE community on:
>
> You could look about Apache::* modules naming conventions:
>
> http://perl.apache.org/products/apache-modules.html#Module_Naming_Conventions
>
> Apache::App::WebMessaging namespace could be a right place :-)
>
According to the asterisk note below Apache::App:: "However, if you are
planning a substantial framework with many inter-related modules, you should
probably go with a top-level namespace outside of Apache::."
This app already has 7-8 inter-related modules, though I would not call it a
substantial framework. In fact it requires you to already have your own
application framework setup in order to use it. It's basically a plug-in
application for your existing mod_perl framework.
I could rename it to just WebMessaging:: but it is specifically designed for
mod_perl, which is why I think it should go in Apache::.
Also, I noticed there are currently no Apache::App:: modules. Should this be
the first??
-Adi