* at 13/03 15:23 +0000 Aaron Trevena said:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
>
> > * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > My opinion is that the only way this project could work is if the scripts
> > > worked on _any_ web server on _any_ platform with _no_ extra modules. Matt
> > > Wright can achieve that and we're all much cleverer than he is, so we
> > > should be able to do it too.
> > >
> >
> > i originally shared your viewpoint on this, but what changed my
> > mind is the following scenario,
> >
> > some random perl monger, lets call them dave for ease has
> > a really cool forums script. unfortunatly dave's script
> > uses TT and dave hasn't time to replace the TT elements.
> >
> > do you exclude this script from the archive on the basis that it
> > uses TT?
> >
> > this question defines the archive of scripts a little. is the
> > collection of scripts specifically aimed at the lowest commond
> > denominator and tackling the MW problem directly, or is that
> > just its core mission, and other scripts are welcome.
>
> I don't think we actually need to lower to teh lowest common denominator -
> by applying the ROPE idea it should be possible to provide some easy
> bundles with their own namespace that the user can just unzip and ftp to
> their own local_modules/rope.
>
> If you provide scripts that work with perl5.x base but also provide
> scripts that use rope::lite, or rope::intermediate bundles the user will
> still be interested in using the bundle and we can encourage them to use
> modules and set them on the path to rightesusness.
>
> I think something like this would be the ultimate test of the ROPE
> concept.
<user type="new">
bundle?
namespace?
help, this looks complex
mmm, matt's script archive: one file is all i need!
</user>
although this is only with ref to replacements for the matt wright
stuff.
struan
