"Lincoln A. Baxter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 14:29, Michael A Nachbaur wrote: > > I'm working on a web application that is almost 100% perl (the styling is > > handled in XSL). The entire application's test and installation procedure is > > managed with a Makefile.PL, and the entire package is very CPAN-ish. I > Comments anyone? > .. very long mail contents here.... > Lincoln > I prefere technology sorted modules. The monster framework structures some distributions have, hide those nifty modules that you would like to use now and then. I also don't like to have simple modules part of a framework because more often than not they become very dependent on the framework architecture and since no one is going to refactor it, it's lost to the framework.
Let me give a little example, I have a build system (make like) written in perl. There's quite a lot that could be made generic and have more value than within the build system. I got tired of Data::Dumper output so I sprinkled code around to get the output I wanted. I did refactor it in a module (because I was forced to not because I was smart) that was left within the framework structure. Because the build system is not out on CPAN, I couldn't reuse the dumper module simply. Arghhh. So I finaly made a module that I can re-use as well as other perl devlopers (Data::TreeDumper, you'll like it or tell me why you don't). I don't think that any other sorting than technological can work. In fact, next time Ill write some kind of framework I'd see that I (seriously) write the "technology" modules before I do any framework work. Nadim.
