On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Lyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Considering that almost everything is already on CPAN, then most plugins are > likely to be wrappers, adding extra benefits like lazy loading and framework > specific functions. It would be wrong to try and recreate things that are > already tried and tested on CPAN.
No one is arguing for rewriting things that are on CPAN. > Plugins that initially just add lazy loading, will likely grow to take > advantage of of other modules and create more framework specific features. The only thing I'm against is a wholesale duplication of huge parts of CPAN's namespace as 10-line modules under CGI::Application::Plugin. If you have unique integration and added value in a plugin, it makes perfect sense. - Perrin ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
