Small nitpick about option names (was: RFC Debian package upgrade with Config::Model)

[Dominique Dumont <dominique.dumont@hp.com>]

Hello

Sorry for the long delay. I had to put this discussion aside due to
paid workload and preparation of the French Perl Workshop (where I
presented Config::Model [1] )

Before plunging back in the package upgrade subject, I'd like to tackle
the smaller issue of option renaming that you suggested.

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
>>Quite good and closer to the current keywords. I'm quite fond of 
>>built_in though. May be "configfile_default" and "built_in_default" ?
>
> Would you mind the singleworded "builtin" instead?  It seems cleaner to 
> me to have it <binding>_<type> with only a single underscore.

I'm may be nitpicking, but what do you think of 'config_default' instead
of 'configfile_default'? So we'd have 'config_default' vs
'builtin_default'.

After all, Config::Model could be used to configure directly an
application instead of using a configuration file. That's just a matter
of setting up a backend with IPC.

BTW, Checklist has similar default options that would become
'config_default_list' and 'builtin_default_list'.

Once this option name modification  is done, I'll resume working on
package upgrade with Config::Model.

All the best

[1] You can already see the presentation (in French)
    http://fpw2009.ubicast.eu/videos/free/64/

-- 
Dominique Dumont 
"Delivering successful solutions requires giving people what they
need, not what they want." Kurt Bittner

irc:
  domidumont at irc.freenode.net
  ddumont at irc.debian.org