Re: MooseX::FSA::Simple

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Does FSA::MooseRole satisfy everyone (or no-one)?

So I am wondering, why have 'Role' in the name at all?

On Sep 21, 2011, at 7:18 AM, Hans Dieter Pearcey wrote:
> If the distinguishing feature of this code is that it is a role, then ...

I suspect that actually, that the distinguishing feature of this code is that it is an FSA and not a Role. The fact it is a Role only means you can not instantiate it directly and must compose it into a class. This actually strikes me as a drawback more then a benefit. 

Why not call it Something::FSA (or something similar, your choice) and slap a simple concrete class that consumes the role into it. THe result might look something like this:

lib/Something/FSA.pm # simple concrete class
lib/Something/FSA/Role.pm # your role

This (IMO) solves two problems:

1) Your module is more usable because people can jump right in with a fully functioning class.
2) You don't need to worry about naming it Something::FSA::Role and all the complexity that goes with it (and people still can just use the role if they want).

Thoughts?

- Stevan

Disclaimer: I didn't really look too closely at your code yet, so if this idea make no sense, feel free to ignore it.