Hi Rob
I would like to add a summary of my ideas here:
o My intention was to criticize your proposal, not you personally.
o My apologies if you think the criticism was personal.
o Consider: Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
o If the internals only are to change, then users won't see anything,
so why change anything?
o Actually, I don't accept the claim that only the internals will change.
I am fearful that there will be other, 'accidental', consequences.
o Why not use a different namespace? Try:
- Apache::PurePerl (witty and provocative, with many connotations)
- CGI::ResponseCycle
- HTTP::RequestServer
- A similar combination
o OK, so you're reinventing CGI::Prototype. But why?
Admittedly that module is conceptually excellent, but the
user-hostile docs have helped kill it off, as has the
long and painful list of prerequisites. Actually, I gave
up half way through trying to install the damn thing!
If, as rumour has it, it has fallen into disuse, ask the
author if you can take over (CPAN) ownership.
I wouldn't myself, since the name misses the target.
o It's true that many ideas, good and bad, are initially met with
a hostile, if not irrational, response.
I put it to you that this is not one of those times.
Rather than reject all criticism, ask yourself what it is
about the proposal which is making us uneasy.
Also, it's contradictory to try discussing this as an
open-source project, and at the same time to reject all
criticism.
--
Cheers
Ron Savage, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 14/12/2005
http://savage.net.au/index.html
Let the record show: Microsoft is not an Australian company
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
