Re: [Soaplite-devel] SOAP::Lite refactoring - splitting up SOAP::Lite

[Robbie B. <rob...@gm...>]

I think consistency has the benefit of making development easier for
developers that contribute in the future. Not a major concern but it
can significantly increase productivity in my experience.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Martin Kutter <mar...@fe...> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>  This has not been so much a problem when all packages were in Lite.pm -
>  now, as we're separating packages for maintainability, it is.
>
>  SOAP is still being used - so I'd prefer to resolve the existing
>  conflicts on SOAP::Lite's side.
>
>  The overlapping names are
>
>   SOAP::Serializer
>   SOAP::Packager
>   SOAP::Transport::HTTP::CGI
>   SOAP::Transport::HTTP::Client
>   SOAP::Transport::HTTP::Server
>
>  We could move those and leave the rest - it's a bit inconsistent, but
>  actually I don't care, except for those conflicts.
>
>  Martin
>
>  Am Sonntag, den 02.03.2008, 09:51 -0800 schrieb Paul Kulchenko:
>
>
> > Martin/Robbie,
>  >
>  > I was aware of the SOAP:: namespace when the module was created and I
>  > was careful not to overlap with the modules that were in the SOAP
>  > namespace. It was possible to use both SOAP::Lite and SOAP modules in
>  > the same application for some time. However, after several years I
>  > stopped paying attention to this as the SOAP module didn't seem to be
>  > supported at all and didn't seem to be used much.
>  >
>  > Would it be easier to resolve namespace conflicts in favor of
>  > SOAP::Lite given the current state of the SOAP module instead of
>  > migrating/renaming everything under SOAP::Lite namespace? We can ask
>  > Keith Brown, the author of the SOAP.pm module, if he is okay with
>  > transferring the namespace. The (original) idea was that the main
>  > module is under S::L namespace, while others, like ::Transport and
>  > ::Data will be under SOAP:: namespace to avoid too many levels in the
>  > hierarchy. Probably not the best way, but it seemed to be the most
>  > straightforward at the time. Even now, I don't like the idea of
>  > having everything under S::L namespace.
>  >
>  > Paul.
>  >
>  > --- Martin Kutter <mar...@fe...> wrote:
>  >
>  > > Hi Robbie,
>  > >
>  > > I've just had my first run on the split up SOAP::Lite you did.
>  > > After
>  > > some adjustments, the test suite passed again.
>  > >
>  > > I started moving most modules from the SOAP:: namespace into
>  > > SOAP::Lite:: - SOAP is another CPAN distribution (which owns the
>  > > namespace), so SOAP::Lite won't get indexed on CPAN when containing
>  > > conflicting packages.
>  > > (theres 2 tickets open for SOAP::Lite namespace issues on CPAN RT).
>  > >
>  > > There's a few packages I don't like to be moved in the first run:
>  > >
>  > > SOAP::Data and SOAP::Header: Both are so widely used that moving
>  > > them
>  > > would break almost every SOAP client/server
>  > >
>  > > SOAP::Transport::*: The transport layer is sometimes used from
>  > > other
>  > > distributions.
>  > >
>  > > I'd suggest providing these modules twice - as SOAP:: and
>  > > SOAP::Lite::
>  > > variant in the next release, and marking them as deprecated. This
>  > > way
>  > > users have a chance to catch up...
>  > >
>  > > Martin
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
>  > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
>  > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
>  > > _______________________________________________
>  > > Soaplite-devel mailing list
>  > > Soa...@li...
>  > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/soaplite-devel
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >       ____________________________________________________________________________________
>  > Be a better friend, newshound, and
>  > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>  >
>
>