On 12/13/05, Ron Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Rob > > I would like to add a summary of my ideas here: > > o My intention was to criticize your proposal, not you personally.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your criticisms of my proposal. You didn't mean anything personally, so I didn't take it as such. > o My apologies if you think the criticism was personal. My self and my ideas are separate. I don't take anything personally unless it's meant that way. > o Consider: Don't fix it if it ain't broke. The internals are broken. They are too tightly coupled together, with a few functions doing too much work. Consider this a refactoring. > o If the internals only are to change, then users won't see anything, > so why change anything? Because the changes would enable more features that users would see. All I'm proposing is the logical extension of the callback hooks that were the major feature for CA4. > o Actually, I don't accept the claim that only the internals will change. > I am fearful that there will be other, 'accidental', consequences. That's what the testsuite is for. If a bug is found that the testsuite wasn't testing for, it was probably broken before and you just didn't know it. > o Why not use a different namespace? Try: > - Apache::PurePerl (witty and provocative, with many connotations) > - CGI::ResponseCycle > - HTTP::RequestServer > - A similar combination Because CGI::Application is the system I like to work under. It's 90% of the way there - I'm just trying to nudge it along. I don't want to write a new one - I want to improve the one I already use. > 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. Huh? Have you actually read CGI::Prototype's code? Do you know what it does? When merlyn wrote it, he was thinking of something completely different than CA. I'm not reinventing CGI::Prototype. If anything, I'm reinventing the Apache bucket brigade, except that CA already has most of the buckets as callback hooks. It just needs a few more and we're done. > 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. I'm not rejecting criticism. I'm responding to it. I'm not the most politically correct man - I say what I mean and mean what I say. I'm honest, forthright, and direct. I have no hidden agendas and all my motives are upfront. It might be that's what's making you uneasy. Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
