I wish I was Finnish so I could be a Tuomas instead of a Thomas.

On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 11:29:58AM +0300, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
> On 25 May 2001 23:58:43 -0400, Tom Rathborne wrote:
> > think about it for a bit and let me know if there's anyone you know
> > who has time to do any technical/design/content _and_ make sure
> > that nothing is dropped on the floor.
> Now, I could be interested in the design front, since I somehow
> think the only way to make this new site happen is to take some
> responsibility on it, and make it happen together instead of just.
> Just discussing it wont make it happen, no matter how good opinions
> are voiced :-)

I agree entirely - but I'm just doing _my_ technical stuff and it's
not worth much unless other people are doing the other bits in

> Tom: To avoid the original problem with the current site, does your
> perl thingy have good docs so people can learn it and maybe try it
> out on their machines to get an idea how it works, in case it needs
> to be expanded or developed further in the future and for some
> reason you dont have the possibility to do it?

The docs are a bit sketchy at the moment, but I _have_ been able to
install it myself in under an hour now so it's obviously not
intractably hairy. I will be documenting it for my article so you can
expect some fairly thorough docs by the end of July at the _very_

> I like the content separation in it, but I am worried a bit about
> this side.

Me too. That's why I'm not pushing _too_ hard to use it. I want
everyone to be aware as they put their head through the noose ... erm

> Not that PHP is the Holy Grail in this, no way. More likely the Ugly
> Bowl of Spaghetti unless someone coordinates it as well. But it is
> easier to find people who can cook more spaghetti of course.. I am
> not really sure. I would vote for the PHP if there was someone to
> look after the code.

Right - so it's a matter of can we find _someone_ to take care of the
tends-to-get-messy PHP code, or is Tom going to stick around to take
care of his neater-but-obtuse Perl stuff? A nasty dilemma to be sure.

> In that sense Tom's perl thing looks more easy to work with, but
> we'd need docs - and it will be harder to expand should we need to
> add some new functionality, unless Tom is around to do it. And this
> was what we wanted to avoid in the first place.

Docs will be on the way but folks may want to make a decision before
the docs are in a state to inspire confidence.

It's pretty easy to add a new handler type to my stuff.  The handlers
just get a page object (which is how you output stuff), a filehandle
(which is reading from the current file), and $%args (which is a bunch
of settings). You just have to interpret the stuff in the file a
certain polite way, and output stuff through the page object in a
certain way.

There are a lot of black boxes that keep things simple; for example
the entire Yahoo-style links-from-database viewing handler is less
than 90 lines of code (with a bunch of blank lines but few comments).

Needless to say the devil is in the details -- but I try to keep the
details in one place and not all over the document tree.



--    Tom Rathborne    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--                     http://www.aceldama.com/~tomr/
--    "I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my life-style."
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to