Opinions: API wrapping, how close to original API should you stay?
andy at hexten.net
Wed Oct 4 20:47:33 BST 2006
On 4 Oct 2006, at 20:40, Nik Clayton wrote:
> At the moment, I'm leaning towards the first. It's simple and
> regular, but it does mean that the programmer has to translate in
> their head from the original API documentation.
> The second lessens that translation slightly, but then the symbol
> inconsistently uses CamelCase and '_' to separate components.
> That last one, to my eyes, just looks ugly.
The first - by exposing the API in perl you're already making it
perlish - so you should use perlish naming conventions. The mapping
is regular between perl names and api names - so it shouldn't be too
huge a leap for anyone.
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
More information about the london.pm