On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:57:15PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Rocco Caputo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-12 11:29]:
Conveniently, I've written exactly the thing that provides the
features I need, in a way that's most convenient for my
purpose. Everything else pales by comparison, otherwise
Rocco Caputo writes:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:19:14PM +, Smylers wrote:
Similarly an author doesn't need to understand all of the problems,
just so long as they state exactly what they are looking at,
preferably stated upfront. So the article starts by saying I'm
looking for a
* Rocco Caputo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-12 11:29]:
Conveniently, I've written exactly the thing that provides the
features I need, in a way that's most convenient for my
purpose. Everything else pales by comparison, otherwise I
would not have written it. Here, let me show you.
Are you
Mark Stosberg writes:
From another angle, I see the current problem with the rating system
is not abuse-- I've never noticed any beyond people rating their own
modules with 5 stars with reviews like It's my module. It's primary
downfall now is that it's simply not being used a lot. Making
A. Pagaltzis writes:
I had an idea ...
* It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
Exactly: sometimes I find an article helpful even though I disagree with
the author's conclusions because along the way he/she
Simon Cozens writes:
Hrm, there isn't an easy way to say this, but an issue with module
reviews is that they're generally written by someone with a particular
bias towards their own solution.
True. But:
* In order for you to have come to that conclusion, the bias must've
been obvious
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
Let's get some good material written first, then worry about where to
stick it ...
Oh, I know a little Perl-related web site that would love any module
comparison articles you were to come up with.
--
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should,
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
From: Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 Feb 2004 10:25:07 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
Let's get some good material written first
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Smylers wrote:
Let's get some good material written first, then worry about where to
stick it ...
I'm coming in a bit late, but isn't this exactly what the various Perl
conferences are for? I say submit it, get it reviewed as worthy, present
it, then have it archived
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've
written two (POOP and date/time) and I know Perrin wrote one
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've
written two
* Dave Rolsky autarch at urth.org [2004/02/10 09:03]:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've
Le 10 févr. 04, à 16:16, darren chamberlain a écrit :
I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to
handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible?
I certainly wouldn't. Rather, I would look at as many alternatives
as necessary until I find the module
* Eric Cholet cholet at logilune.com [2004/02/10 17:27]:
Le 10 f?vr. 04, ? 16:16, darren chamberlain a ?crit :
I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to
handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible?
I certainly wouldn't. Rather, I would
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Eric Cholet wrote:
Le 10 f?vr. 04, ? 16:16, darren chamberlain a ?crit :
I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to
handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible?
I certainly wouldn't. Rather, I would
Le 10 févr. 04, à 17:29, darren chamberlain a écrit :
* Eric Cholet cholet at logilune.com [2004/02/10 17:27]:
Le 10 f?vr. 04, ? 16:16, darren chamberlain a ?crit :
I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to
handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Rolsky) writes:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've
written two
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:03:27AM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work.
* Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-10 16:31]:
With Perl modules, I think there is typically less on the line
than $100,000 contracts. I found in my own experience that
people are generally trustworthy.
Precisely this lack of consequence actually makes me feel it
might be more
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Simon Cozens wrote:
Hrm, there isn't an easy way to say this, but an issue with module
reviews is that they're generally written by someone with a particular
bias towards their own solution. (I say that as someone who wrote one
too ;)
That's not necessarily a problem if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
Personally I found Simon's commentary on some mail-sending modules to be
very useful (and I didn't object to his choice of words: when he found
something he didn't like he merely said so -- he didn't insult the
code's author or make allegations about members
Title: RE: New module Mail::SendEasy
Even if it's done with benchmarks.
Just curious, but how well does MIME::Lite fare?
Yves
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 07:18:38PM +, Smylers wrote:
The Cpan rating thing may help somewhat in this regard -- I will log on
and give MIME::Lite a good review sometime, honestly!
What would really be useful is a comparison of the various mail-sending
modules available, listing which
* Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-05 15:17]:
I think the name is unhelpful.
...
Then, somehow, I encountered MIME::Lite. It seems to do
everything I want and be easier to use than the alternatives,
and I use it for all mail-sending. But I'd never've thought to
try it in the first place.
* Orton, Yves [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-05 15:17]:
Mail::Simple?
I came up with that independently (ie before seeing your question
here), actually, and still think it's the best.
Mail::Formally::Known::As::Mime::Lite?
Surely that would be Mail::Symbol?
--
Regards,
Aristotle
If you
Dave Rolsky writes:
The slowness and amount of code are not nearly as important as the
fact that the API is inelegant.
I completely agree with that -- far better for your internals to be a
bit wonky than for every user of your module to have to jump through
hoops. Also, there's always the
Martyn J. Pearce writes:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:45:28AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
But I also find MIME::Lite to be a horrible name. It certainly
doesn't present the module as a choice when you go through the
obvious keywords looking for modules for sending mail.
Of course, at
Title: RE: New module Mail::SendEasy
I think the name is unhelpful. A few years ago I happened to use
several different mail-sending modules, in different projects
or in code
instigated by different people. In general they were OK, but none of
them stood out as being superior
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yves Orton) writes:
Well suggest a name. It seems like folks concur that the name is not so great
so ill alias it to something else.
Mail::Send::MIME?
--
People in a Position to Know, Inc.
Title: RE: New module Mail::SendEasy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yves Orton) writes:
Well suggest a name. It seems like folks concur that the
name is not so great
so ill alias it to something else.
Mail::Send::MIME?
Sounds good. Ill go for that.
BTW, curses but i still havent found
* Graciliano M. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-27 06:16]:
First, I didn't know MIME::Lite until Orton send me an e-mail
in this list.
Of all the things that bother me in this discussion, this one
bothers me the most.
The reason for this, I think, is two-fold.
Obviously Gracilliano's research
Title: RE: New module Mail::SendEasy
I think MIME::Lite isn't in the Module List so the name
wasn't peer-reviewed.
The peer-review process offered by [EMAIL PROTECTED] certainly isn't
perfect, but I do believe it's very valuable.
Unless I read the file incorrectly MIME::Lite
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:23:51PM -, Orton, Yves wrote:
I think MIME::Lite isn't in the Module List so the name
wasn't peer-reviewed.
The peer-review process offered by [EMAIL PROTECTED] certainly isn't
perfect, but I do believe it's very valuable.
Unless I read
Title: RE: New module Mail::SendEasy
Unless I read the file incorrectly MIME::Lite is indeed
in the module list, at least I see it there.
Afaik its been in the wild since at least 98, if not
earlier. (I dont know the full history, I am only
the module maintainer)
Ah, thanks
* Mark Overmeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-01-29 02:12]:
But of course, he feels the need to insult other people's work
to promote his own. It's his way of gaining importance.
I don't think he's insulting in order to promote so much as
simply being vocal about his dissatisfaction with existing
Title: RE: New module Mail::SendEasy
But my point is not to rag on about Mail::Box, or any other
mail handling
module. It's to write smaller, cleaner, single purpose ones.
Hey, Email::MIME
came out the other day. Comments welcome.
Ill have a look at some point. It will be interesting
Sorry, I'm not on the list, but got this passed on...
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:49:29 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: New module Mail::SendEasy
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yves Orton) writes:
Besides this is there really any reason for yet another MIME
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Terrence Brannon wrote:
- it seems that instead of volunteers to ease the burden of your API
usage/docs, people are trying to pull the rug out from under you by
populating the Email::* hierarchy... oh well.
I hope you're not including me here. My comments were intended
Mark Overmeer wrote:
Mail::Box was designed to start with EVERYTHING which the RFCs specify,
and ALL uses I know with e-mail. A very high level library. And that's
quite a lot... And therefore suffers all the same problems as other
large modules (like Tk) have: they are hard to understand when
At 02:12 -0600 1/28/04, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Terrence Brannon wrote:
I also tend to agree with him that Mail::Box is a bit over-engineered in
the OO department. Do you _really_ need _eleven_ classes for
Mail::Message::Field, which in turn are presumably used by the _nine_
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
At 02:12 -0600 1/28/04, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Terrence Brannon wrote:
I also tend to agree with him that Mail::Box is a bit over-engineered in
the OO department. Do you _really_ need _eleven_ classes for
Mark Overmeer wrote:
OTOH, it _does_ do basically everything you'd ever want for mail
handling/sending, and if you want to do something complex, it'll do that
that.
That is one of the differences in concept. I prefer libraries to provide
a high
Title: RE: Re: New module Mail::SendEasy
Mail::SendEasy can:
- Handle automatically SMTP AUTH (very important in this days).
- Handles automatically TXT, HTML and attachments. Soo, you
don't need to
think about multipart, boundary, etc...
- Compress multiple attachments in a zip file
RE: New module Mail::SendEasyRE: New module Mail::SendEasy
I know that already exists a lot of SMTP, AUTH and e-mail
senders at CPAN,
but no one in one single package. Specially one that doesn't have
dependencies, like libnet.
Ok, so it doesnt need libnet But why is that an advantage
Title: RE: New module Mail::SendEasy
Humm, MIME::Lite need sendmail or some object instance that
send e-mails to
reaally send an e-mail.
Yes thats correct. The composition and transmission layers are logically seperate. But that doesnt change that fact that MIME::Lite is quite capable
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Orton, Yves wrote:
Well, not really. Its essentially all you need straight out of the box,
given certain platform specific issues. Like libnet on win32, on the
presence of something sendmail like on non win32 platforms.
FWIW, MIME::Lite has for a long time been my
Title: RE: New module Mail::SendEasy
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Orton, Yves wrote:
Well, not really. Its essentially all you need straight
out of the box,
given certain platform specific issues. Like libnet on win32, on the
presence of something sendmail like on non win32 platforms
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 06:05:27PM -0300, Graciliano M. P. wrote:
Second, the self contained module counts a lot for me and the framework that
we develope! We really can't ask to the user to install soo many modules to
can use it.
If the author of MIME::Lite is interested to change it's
Title: RE: New module Mail::SendEasy
If the author of MIME::Lite is interested to change it's MIME::Lite
architecture (just talking about dependencies) I will be
interested to add
some resources to it, since as I can see now, is a popular module.
I'm als a user and fan of MIME
Dave Rolsky:
I think your article sort of misses the point. ...
No, I think you miss my point.
The slowness and amount of code are not nearly as important as the fact
that the API is inelegant.
However, the code is slow and bulky.
But keep most of the
internals, because he's dealt with a
50 matches
Mail list logo
