Lincoln A. Baxter wrote:
Does it make sense to create a new generic TLNS into which one might
hope to eventually see all such Frameworks migrated, or, should we just
go for our own new TLNS?
Sorry if I'm flogging a dead horse, but IMHO just pick a name, and make
sure that you include a good
Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
freshmeat.net works pretty well too
This isn't a viable option for me. If this application is 100% perl, why go
*outside* of the perl distribution network of choice to distribute it?
freshmeat isn't a distribution network, it's an index of applications.
We're
On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 12:37, Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
This is the kind of problem I'd like to solve with a new top
level namespace.
Scripts are in a separate section of CPAN from modules
http://cpan.org/scripts/index.html
freshmeat.net works pretty well too
--
david nicol
People used
On May 19, 2004 12:20 am, david nicol wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 12:37, Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
This is the kind of problem I'd like to solve with a new top
level namespace.
Scripts are in a separate section of CPAN from modules
http://cpan.org/scripts/index.html
This isn't a script,
On May 18, 2004 11:25 am, Chris Josephes wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
Since the whole framework is 100% Perl, I feel it would be worth it to
publish it on CPAN, especially since the underlying Perl modules can be
extended by other users. This is the kind of problem
Lincoln A. Baxter wrote:
Comments anyone?
Lincoln
What differentiates your framework from POE?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's a fine line between participation and mockery -- Scott Adams
On May 17, 2004 02:04 am, khemir nadim wrote:
I prefere technology sorted modules. The monster framework structures some
distributions have, hide those nifty modules that you would like to use now
and then. I also don't like to have simple modules part of a framework
because more often than
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 02:17:12PM -0400, Lincoln A. Baxter wrote:
Lets talk about POE. With POE we have a suite of packages whose scope
and breath is not unlike what we have put together with GIP.
Infact when we started originially, we looked at POE. At that point
we considered it
Lincoln A. Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 14:29, Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
I'm working on a web application that is almost 100% perl (the styling
is
handled in XSL). The entire application's test and installation
procedure is
managed
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 14:29, Michael A Nachbaur wrote:
I'm working on a web application that is almost 100% perl (the styling is
handled in XSL). The entire application's test and installation procedure is
managed with a Makefile.PL, and the entire package is very CPAN-ish. I
wanted to
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 03:17:50PM -0400, _brian_d_foy wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael A Nachbaur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing is, these are free-standing applications, and for the most part
aren't developer tools. So, I was thinking an App:: namespace would work
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Stosberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 03:17:50PM -0400, _brian_d_foy wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael A Nachbaur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd rather see top-level namespaces for complete applications. I don't
think the
I'm working on a web application that is almost 100% perl (the styling is
handled in XSL). The entire application's test and installation procedure is
managed with a Makefile.PL, and the entire package is very CPAN-ish. I
wanted to know if there was some place on CPAN that I can publish it so
13 matches
Mail list logo
