On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Trans wrote:

> Like to know others general opinions on having a comprehensive library
> vs. independent libraries.
>
> In my quest to make Facets' functionality available in some smaller
> parts, I am left with hard choice. I think of it as the DHH vs. WHY
> style question, b/c these two well known developers most clearly
> reflect the approaches in their work. For DHH (ie. Rails) we have a
> number of libs with closely labeled packages: ActionPack,
> ActionMailer, ActiveSupport, ActiveRecord, etc. While _why's libs all
> have highly independent packaging with clever names: Markaby, Hpricot,
> Syck, etc. Now, I realize that different circumstances have certainly
> led to this, eg. Rails is meant as a single comprehensive web-
> framework, while Why's packages are more unique and reflect his
> exceptional creatively, but either could have taken the other approach
> if they so wished. And in my case (and surely some other large
> projects as well), the distinction is not as straight forward.
>
> So my question is, which is preferable? What criteria should one base
> this decision on?
>
> To clarify here is my specific scenario. I've narrowed it down, more-
> or-less, to these Whyish vs. DHHish possibilities:
>
>  Aces        Facets/CORE
>  Jacks       Facets/BASE
>  Tapestry    Facets/AOP
>  Comrade     Facets/CLI
>  Fileside    Facets/FS
>  Annote      Facets/ANN

Well, the names first column are library names that don't have any 
imediate meaning to me and moreover overlap with other libraries' names 
(Aces (distributed programming c-lib), Jacks (sound system), Tapestry 
(java-lib?)), so they might be funny and clever but not helpful.

The second column pretty clearly says what a library is about.

So I'd prefer use/helpful to funny/clever.
*t

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
   Tomas Pospisek
   http://sourcepole.com -  Linux & Open Source Solutions
-----------------------------------------------------------