From: <iva...@42...> - 2003-05-03 01:58:02
|
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 08:30:23PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote: > On Fri, 2 May 2003 iva...@42... wrote: > > > Well, then, why aren't there separate, functionally named CPAN modules > > instead of a giant Alzabo distribution including modules and web apps? > > If you want people to easily make use of the pieces, maybe you should > > split them out into their own modules and give them descriptive names as > > suggested in section 2.5 of the Module List. > > Because they all share some core code that wouldn't be useful on its own, > so splitting it out would either require me to duplicate it, or to release > a cpan package called "Alzabo::Core" that contained a bunch of > superclasses. That seems silly. I made a suggestion from a module _users_ perspective, and you responded that there are internal technical consdierations which would make such a thing "silly". The person looking for a module to help them with a specific task doesn't care about the technical considerations on the inside. "sufficiently encapsulated hack", etc. If Alzabo has pieces which you feel would be useful in their own right, more people might find and use them if you split them off and dropped the cutsie namespace. Or not - but feigning surprise when people can't swallow the whole enchalada seems like a waste of time. Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you how to write your code. My original statement was meant to explain why I continue to maintain DBIx::DBSchema even though there is some overlap with Alzabo's functionality - because I find Alzabo far too big a pill to swallow for a slice of its functionality. -- _ivan |