Re: [Nms-cgi-devel] Open question on variable/constants

[Olivier D. <dr...@sh...>]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:42:58PM +0000, Nick Cleaton wrote:
> The big problem (with both constants and subs) is that it makes
> the config section of the script look a bit different, and we're
> aiming to make it very easy for users with no technical skills to
> change from Matt's version to ours by copying their config over.

True. But I think if it *looks* like it, then normal people will
realize that we're just making things "better" because MWS are "bad"
which is also, I think, one of the goal of this project.

On the other hand, at least for formmail--I haven't looked at
any others yet--the configuration setting is *MUCH* different from MWS.
Putting 3-4 line comments between each config variables resulting in
about 4 pages of config for about 5-10 parameters definetly makes it very
*HARD* for newbies. And what is the configuration isn't clear either.
There are impossible to notice "Configuration" and "End Configuration"
comments burried under a pile of other comments which really belong in
the README. I've been a newbie not so long ago and MWS, although bad,
had all of the config parameters together, one line after the other; all
of this enclosed in very visible "Configuration - this is all you need
to modify to get the script working" comments placed near the top of the
script; not after a few pages of log, which I think belong in a seperate
file.

I'm not trying to critisize anybody's work here. I know that nothing is
finished yet--in fact most scripts have alpha or beta attached to them.
I'm simply trying to make a point that using "use constant" instead of
scalar is a better way of doing thing, and I don't see it being an
issue for readability and MWS users' friendliness. Oppositely, I would
see it as more user friendly.

As a diet-coke of newbie I'd say that if comments are clear, you can
put things any way you want.

-Oli


-- 
+----------------------------------------------+
| Olivier Dragon        dr...@sh... |
| Software Engineering II, McMaster University |
+----------------------------------------------+