Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RFC] web-messaging application for mod_perl

Expand Messages
  • Enrico Sorcinelli
    On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:57:00 -0700 ... You could look about Apache::* modules naming conventions:
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 1 2:23 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:57:00 -0700
      Adi Fairbank <adi@...> 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
    • Adi Fairbank
      On, or in the near vicinity of Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:23:00 +0200 ... According to the asterisk note below Apache::App:: However, if you are planning a
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 1 9:15 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On, or in the near vicinity of Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:23:00 +0200
        Enrico Sorcinelli <e.sorcinelli@...> has thus spoken:

        > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:57:00 -0700
        > Adi Fairbank <adi@...> 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
      • Stas Bekman
        ... 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
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 14 8:49 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Adi Fairbank wrote:
          > On, or in the near vicinity of Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:23:00 +0200
          > Enrico Sorcinelli <e.sorcinelli@...> has thus spoken:
          >
          >
          >>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:57:00 -0700
          >>Adi Fairbank <adi@...> 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@... http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
          http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
        • Adi Fairbank
          On, or in the near vicinity of Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:49:58 +0300 ... Well, I don t like that name, but I do get what you mean. ( I wouldn t want to have any
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 14 8:14 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            On, or in the near vicinity of Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:49:58 +0300
            Stas Bekman <stas@...> 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
          • James G Smith
            ... As an aside, RFC 1178 has some ideas on host naming that might be useful here: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1178.txt?number=1178 . We re not talking about
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 14 11:47 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Adi Fairbank <adi@...> wrote:
              >On, or in the near vicinity of Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:49:58 +0300
              >Stas Bekman <stas@...> 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...
              >>
              >
              >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.

              As an aside, RFC 1178 has some ideas on host naming that might be
              useful here: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1178.txt?number=1178 . We're
              not talking about naming hosts, but the principles are similar. (I
              do make a suggestion on names in the penultimate paragraph.)

              First, there are several things WebMessaging could mean: a Web
              e-mail client such as TWIG (in PHP) or SquirrelMail (I think in Perl)
              or a web interface for sending SMS messages to cell phones. There
              are protocols that this can be done with: SOAP, XML-RPC, Jabber, Sun
              RPC, SMTP, etc. Some are more useful in certain situations than
              others.

              For customer to customer messaging, there are several different
              types: instant messaging, usually mediated via Java clients but
              sometimes through a reloaded web page (at least in olden times [>4
              years ago]), store and forward (e.g., WebCT internal e-mail system
              whereby customers can send messages to other customers without
              leaving the application). There are probably others I haven't run
              into yet or that I've forgotten about.

              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.

              There are other applications on CPAN that use somewhat fanciful names that
              have a connection to the application:

              o I've used Uttu (a Sumerian goddess of weaving) for an application
              framework framework and Gestinanna (... of record keeping, iirc)
              for a system/customer account management application. (Neither
              of these are `popular' or finished enough to warrant any
              significant attention -- I use them only as examples.)

              o Dave Rolsky's used Alzabo (``The red orbs of the alzabo were
              something more, neither the intelligence of humankind nor the
              innocence of the brutes. So a fiend might look, I thought, when
              it had at last struggled up from the pit of some dark star.'' --
              Gene Wolfe _The Sword of the Lictor__) for an RDBMS schema
              management and data access system.

              o Jonathan Swartz chose Mason for a component-based templating
              system.

              There's OpenInteract, Bricolage, Tangram, AxKit, etc., all of which
              have names only loosely tied to what they are doing.

              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.

              Finally, you might want to change the version from 0.80pre1 to
              0.80_01 -- CPAN might get confused by the first format.
              --
              James Smith <JGSmith@...>, 979-862-3725
              Texas A&M CIS Operating Systems Group, Unix
            • Stas Bekman
              ... [...] ... 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
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 15 3:30 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Adi Fairbank wrote:
                > On, or in the near vicinity of Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:49:58 +0300
                > Stas Bekman <stas@...> 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@... http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
                http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
              • John Saylor
                hi ... don t be too sure. no one may call it anything at all in about 6 months ... what about Apache::Messaging::Web to leave room for other messaging modules
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 15 5:57 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  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
                • Adi Fairbank
                  On, or in the near vicinity of Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:47:13 -0500 ... [...] ... [...] ... Ok, I m sold. Now I get the reason for not using such a generic name.
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 16 2:51 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On, or in the near vicinity of Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:47:13 -0500
                    James G Smith <JGSmith@...> has thus written:

                    > Adi Fairbank <adi@...> 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
                  • James G Smith
                    ... Glad I could help. As far as I m concerned, you are free to use the name. I don t have any particular claim to it myself. -- James Smith
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jul 16 3:29 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Adi Fairbank <adi@...> wrote:
                      >On, or in the near vicinity of Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:47:13 -0500
                      >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?

                      Glad I could help. As far as I'm concerned, you are free to use the
                      name. I don't have any particular claim to it myself.
                      --
                      James Smith <JGSmith@...>, 979-862-3725
                      Texas A&M CIS Operating Systems Group, Unix
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.