From: JamesBritt <james@...>
Date: 2002-10-30T13:02:11+09:00
Subject: Re: good link to read as we contemplate RAA, RAA.succ, et al

>
> > Which one gets the name XML::Parser?
>
> In this case? None of them, IMO. They would become, under Simon's
> scheme (and I mostly of agree with it), XML::Parser::REXML,
> XML::Parser::NQXML, XML::Parser::libxml. What I'd like to see to
> really make this work and be powerful is to slightly change how
> "include"/"append_features" works, particularly from the perspective
> of including into the top-level. What would be nice is the ability
> to do:
>
>     include XML::Parser::REXML as XML::Parser
>
> Allowing me, in my code, to alias REXML as XML::Parser.

I like that.  (It presumes, though, that the APIs are the same.)

I was thinking about how namespaces and path names might be used to group
installed modules, such that an application could safely assume that all XML
parsers were installed under, say,  site_dir/1.8/xml/parser/, and could then
decide what module to load based on what was found there.


James


>
> -austin
> -- Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.10.29 at 22.29.21
>
>
>
>