Yuval Kogman wrote:
Template is obviously the One True Way to template text ;-)
Basically if there's anything objectionable about it, in the sense that the
code has some sort of opinion, it isn't just a tool, then I tend to choose a
"cutesy" name out of respect for the notion that it might not be everyone's
cup of tea.
If Test::More was named TheSplurfinator then I doubt it would be as popular,
because really it's quite a simple concept.
On the other hand, if Catalyst was called WWW::Framework, then that wouldn't
make much sense either.
Further to this, I would say that if the module is relatively simple, don't give
it its own namespace, but if it is large and complicated and realistically
likely to become its own ecosystem that grows other related modules, then use a
top level namespace, or a pair of them such as Foo:: for the official parts and
FooX:: as the recommended place for unofficial or experimental parts.
As for apps on the CPAN - I'm all for it, as long as it installs and deploys
like a CPAN module (i.e. maybe a command line app to create new "instances"
is a good idea if it needs some sort of private data directory). This can be
a PITA to do though.
I've heard it said that the "App::" top level namespace is a good place to put
applications on CPAN. Below that you'd have to make up a name.
I would suggest putting it on github first to see if there's any interest.
I believe it already was; see the thread-starter post, which had this:
http://github.com/dexterbt1/MooseX-DataMapper
-- Darren Duncan
