Re: [cgiapp] Re: re-branding CGI::App

[Michael Peters <suppressed>]

Sean Davis wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/6/06 2:28 PM, "Joel Gwynn" <suppressed> wrote:
> 
>> True.  One should also consider google-ability.  Web::Application
>> could be as difficult to google as .NET.
> 
> I further this sentiment.  Sticking religiously to "name is function"
> satisfies one goal, but may fall short for others.  Is there a big downside
> to "going out on a limb" with the name (perhaps within the Web:: namespace,
> perhaps not)?

While I agree that having a nice name is good for a framework, I'm doubtful
about using it as the name of a perl module. C::A isn't really a framework in
the sense that Maypole, Catalyst, Jifty, C::A::F, etc are.

I think having it be a module and not a framework means there are more people
working on it. So any frameworks that want to use it can do so and benefit from
it's non-framework usage. The other frameworks can't really say that.

-- 
Michael Peters
Developer
Plus Three, LP


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive:  http://www.mail-archive.com/suppressed/
              http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suppressed
For additional commands, e-mail: suppressed